Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously in quired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Windsor Gas Bill.

Bill committed.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred, on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Nottingham Corporation (Trent Navigation) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Oxford and St. Albans Wine Privileges (Abolition) Bill,—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 29th March, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Oxford and St. Albans Wine Privileges (Abolition) Bill.

Blackburn Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

OIL CONCESSIONS (BURMA).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Colonel Frank Johnson, who was censured for his action at Lahore, was shortly afterwards granted oil or other concessions in Burma; what he paid for the concessions; and whether the concession was reported to Delhi before being granted by the Burma Government and was made with the approval of the Indian Executive?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I will read the reply given to a similar question in the Legislative Assembly on the 15th September, 1921:
No mining concessions have teen granted to Colonel Frank Johnson personally in Burma, but concessions for oil have been granted by the Local Government to two companies in which he is interested In the Punjab, Colonel Frank Johnson has been granted by the local Government a prospecting licence for oil over 1¼ square miles in the Attock district. A prospecting licence is ordinarily granted for only one year in the first instance in order to enable the concessionaire to test the property.
Development of mineral resources which are Government property is a provincial subject under the rules issued under Section 45a of the Government of India Act, and local Governments have full powers to grant prospecting licences and mining leases without reference to the Government of India, provided that they are in accordance with the mining rules prescribed by the Government of India.
The Burma Government have stated that the concessions have been granted to the two companies in pursuance of the ordinary industrial development of the Province, that they employ expert staff, and have expended money freely investigating the mineral resources of the Province, and that in all respects mineral concessions, rules, and regulations have been scrupulously observed, and Colonel Frank Johnson's connection with the administration of martial law in the Punjab was not considered relevant.
That answers all the hon. Member's inquiries, except as to fees. The rules require from an applicant (i) a fee of 50 rupees for a certificate of approval as a suitable person to receive a licence, (ii) a deposit to meet the cost of survey of the area applied for, and (iii) if a mining
lease is granted, a royalty of eight annas per 40 gallons of oil or five per cent. ad valorem on gross value.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the Indian Government approves of this grant to Colonel F. Johnson, in spite of the fact that he was censored for his conduct?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer—which is an abnormally long one—given, as it was, by the Government of India, answers that question most specifically.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: Can the Noble Lord take up the question of removing this Vote of Censure from Colonel Johnson?

Earl WINTERTON: That in no way arises out of this answer. The question has nothing whatever to do with it.

BURMA (CONSTITUTION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when he anticipates being able to enact the new Burma Constitution; and whether we are to attribute the delay in the enactment to the changes at the India Office?

Earl WINTERTON: With reference to the first part of the question, I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave, the hon. and gallant Member last week. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

RAILWAYS (DEVELOPMENT).

Major GLYN: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government and the Government of India to give effect to the proposals of the Committee set up to inquire into the administration and working of the Indian railways [Cmd. 1512]; whether it is intended, by private enterprise or by State action, to commence the construction of some of the 100,000 miles that were considered necessary 14 years ago by the Mackay Committee; and whether, in view of the present industrial depression in the engineering and steel industries of this country, he will consider the desirability of placing orders for material at once?

Earl WINTERTON: The proposals of the Indian Railway Committee are being
considered by the Government of India, who have decided on a capital expenditure of 150 crores of rupees (about £100,000,000 at the current rate of exchange) in the next five years. Almost the whole of this will be required for the improvement and development of existing lines, and there is no prospect of any appreciable new mileage being undertaken otherwise than through private enterprise. The Budget provides for an expenditure of about £18,000,000 on imported railway stores and material during 1922–3. Though, for reasons which I have given in the Debate on the East India Loans Bill Resolution, it is necessary to reserve the right to purchase these stores in the cheapest market, subject to satisfactory quality, delivery, etc., I confidently hope that the tenders of British manufacturers will be such as to secure the placing of a large part of the contracts in this country.

Major GLYN: Does that answer mean that representations made by firms interested in the development, by private enterprise, of railway facilities in India will be favourably recommended by the India Office to the Government of India?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir; it does not mean that. Such representations must be considered by the Government of India on their merits.

Mr. WISE: Is this the amount recommended by the Railway Committee that sat about six months ago?

Earl WINTERTON: I should require notice of that question.

STEAMERS (GOVERNMENT SERVICE).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office are running steamers between the United Kingdom ports and the Persian Gulf in competition with private shipowners; will the profit or loss arising therefrom be shown in the Estimates; and, if so, on what Vote?

Earl WINTERTON: The High Commissioner, acting as the agent of the Government of India, is running 11 enemy ships captured in Indian ports. The ships are employed partly in carrying Government stores and partly in private trade. Some of them are employed in trade between the United
Kingdom and the Persian Gulf in cooperation with the shipping company concerned in that trade. Substantial profits have been earned by these ships. They are not shown in the Estimates, because they are being earned by the Government of India and not by the British Government.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Will that profit accrue to the taxpayers of India?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, the profits arising from the present management.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is it proposed to run these Government ships indefinitely.

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir; it is not intended to run them indefinitely, but for the moment it is convenient to do so.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that we have been told repeatedly that the Government was against State trading? How is it, then, that the Government of India is competing with private enterprise by State-owned ships?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not admit that they are competing with private enterprise, because these ships are being run in conjunction with a private company; but the system is not to be continued indefinitely.

CONSTITUTION (REVISION).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, with respect to a Resolution which was passed by the Indian Legislative Assembly, in September, asking the Government of India to convey to the Secretary of State the view of the Assembly that the progress made by India on the path of responsible government warrants a re-examination and revision of the constitution at an earlier date than in 1929, he will say what reply he intends to make to this Resolution?

Earl WINTERTON: The matter is now engaging the Secretary of State's attention, and I cannot at present make any further statement.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the Noble Lord aware of the fact that the Resolution referred to was passed
unanimously by the Legislative Assembly, and will he answer the last part of the question?

Earl WINTERTON: I am sure the Noble Lord will realise the difficulty of dealing with a matter which involves the gravest constitutional issues by means of answers at question time.

BURMESE CONSTITUTION.

Captain ELLIOT: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now any further statement to make upon the progress made with the draft Burmese Constitution?

Earl WINTERTON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on 28th March to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, to which I cannot at present add anything.

CIVIL SERVICE (CONDUCT RULES).

Sir J. D. REES: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any rule or regulation in force in British India prescribes that official censure for official acts affects the right of the person censured to avail himself of the rights and privileges possessed by all British subjects?

Earl WINTERTON: I am not sure that I fully understand the question, but I find nothing in the Indian Government servants' conduct rules of the nature referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WAR DECORATIONS.

Sir CHARLES TOWNSHEND: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state whether it has yet been decided, with regard to the late War, which battles are to be signified by clasps, not only in the principal theatre of the War, but in the secondary theatres like Mesopotamia and Palestine also?

Colonel BURN: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War if any decision has yet been arrived at concerning the clasps to be given for service in the great War?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to the award of clasps for
service during the great War, but the point indicated in the question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wrekin Division will not be lost sight of.

Colonel BURN: Is it decided to give a clasp or not—it is a long time since the War: we ought to know whether or not clasps are or are not to be given—that is my question?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No decision has been come to.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the British war medal has been awarded by the Admiralty to all officers and men who performed 28 days' mobilised approved service between 5th August, 1914, and 11th November, 1918, irrespective of whether the service was performed afloat, overseas, or solely at home on shore, he will say why he is not prepared to issue British war medals to the Army on the same basis?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have nothing to add to my previous answers on this subject to the hon. Member.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this differentiation between the one service and the other should be made: it is a question of cost?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I can only answer for the service for which I am responsible. I have answered a good many questions from the hon. Gentleman on the subject.

MARRIED QUARTERS.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that there is a serious shortage of accommodation for married families of units in the various Commands in England, and that this shortage has been accentuated by the trading concern known as the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes being allowed to occupy married quarters for their male and female staffs; and if he will state the total number of quarters occupied in this manner by male and female staffs of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes in the Alder-shot, Eastern, Northern, Southern, and
Western Commands, and the amount of rent paid by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes for this accommodation in Government buildings?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am aware of the shortage in question, but I do not think that it is very materially increased by the fact that the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes continue to occupy certain quarters, almost all of which are part of existing regimental institutes and were originally provided for the accommodation of canteen managers. Excluding these, which were never intended for occupation by the troops, the total numbers of the quarters referred to in the last part of the question are Northern Command five, Aldershot Command eight. The question of the entitlement of Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes employés to occupy these quarters and the rent, if any, to be paid, is at present under consideration.

Captain GEE: Is it not the fact that many of the families of employés remaining in the Army canteens are in occupation of married families quarters?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is the question asked me: my reply is that Married Quarters to the number of five in the Northern Command and eight in the Aldershot Command are the only quarters occupied by the employés.

GARRISON THEATRES.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the garrison theatres at various military centres were built for the sole purpose of regimental concerts, regimental dances, boxing tournaments, and generally for the use of the regiments stationed in the garrisons, but are now run by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes as trading concerns, and cannot be utilised for the purpose of regimental entertainments; and if he can state if any, and what, rent is paid to garrison funds by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes for the use of these buildings?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: These theatres are conducted by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes for the purpose for which they were erected, namely, the amusement and instruction of the forces, and I am informed that the suggestion that they cannot be used for
the purpose of regimental entertainments is not accurate. The question of the rent payable to garrison funds for a theatre, provided out of those funds and not from public money, would, in the first instance, be for settlement between the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes and the garrison authorities as a private matter; but if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any case in which he thinks the interests of the public or of the troops are being prejudiced, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

LONGMOOR CAMP, HAMPSHIRE.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: 12 and 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether it is intended to keep Longmoor Camp occupied; and, if so, whether cavalry, artillery, or engineers will be kept there;
(2) what is the annual cost of Longmoor Camp, Hampshire, apart from the cost of the troops quartered there, but taking into consideration the capital outlay at 5 per cent.; and whether it is proposed to cut down the present expenses?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON- EVANS: The permanent pre-War lines at Longmore Camp are now occupied by Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery, and it is proposed to keep the camp in occupation by units of those arms in addition to the necessary auxiliary services. The cost of the camp is at present about £14,450, out of which £7,950 represents 5 per cent. interest on capital. The cost of maintenance of works and buildings has already been so closely scrutinised and so much reduced that I am not sure that any further reduction is safely practicable at present. The matter is, however, constantly watched.

BRAMLEY FACTORY.

Captain GEE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War, whether part of the Government factory at Bramley is occupied by the United Steel Company; and, if so, what rent, if any, is paid?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The United Steel Company is occupying a portion of the Bramley factory, and there engaged in breaking down ammunition. In consequence the cost of transport of the ammunition has been saved. The amount of the rental has not yet been fixed, but it is proposed to charge a fair rent.

Captain GEE: Could not this particular work just as well be done by some of the men who are now being discharged from Woolwich?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know the details, but I have answered the question on the Paper. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down another question, I shall be glad to answer it.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).

Captain GEE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that 60 disabled men have been discharged from the Army Ordnance Department, Royal Dockyard, Woolwich, during the past 10 days; and if, seeing that there is sufficient work awaiting completion to keep these men fully employed for at least 12 months, these men can be kept on for the present?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The staff that remains is sufficient for all essential duties, and I much regret, therefore, that the matter cannot be reconsidered.

Captain GEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of passing a Measure making the employment of disabled men compulsory?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: At present the establishment does include 20 per cent. of disabled men.

Captain GEE: Is it not a fact that some of this work has been taken away from Woolwich quite recently, and that disabled men have been turned out on to the streets in consequence?

VETERINARY STAFF.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that, while the number of horses borne on home and foreign establishments has dropped from 28,739 for the year 1914–15 to 26,214 for the year 1922–23, i.e., close on 10 per cent., there has been an increase during the same period, after excluding the officers and other ranks employed in Palestine and Iraq, in the number of veterinary staff employed; and whether it is possible for the veterinary staff to be reduced at least in proportion to the reduction in the horses?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am aware of the discrepancy referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend and I explained it in the course of the Debate on Army Estimates on 22nd ultimo. Owing to the geographical distribution of troops in Egypt, Constantinople, the Rhine Area and Silesia, it is necessary, in order to ensure efficient supervision, to have a larger veterinary staff than would otherwise have been required. When these forces are reduced or withdrawn, and when the Territorial Army boarding-out scheme has been closed down, the veterinary services will be correspondingly reduced.

HORSES.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that, while the Royal Horse and Royal Field Artillery and the cavalry are to be reduced by almost one-third, and motor transport has in a large measure taken the place of horse transport in the Royal Army Service Corps, the reduction of horses borne on the establishment for the year 1922–23 is less than 10 per cent. on the 1914–15 figure; and whether it is possible to effect further large reductions in the number of horses?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Reductions in the number of horses will be possible as troops are withdrawn from such stations as the Constantinople area, Egypt and the Rhine. On the other hand, the formation of new branches such as medium and pack artillery and the signal corps involve the provision of horses which were not required in 1914–15. The matter is not one on which a full statement is possible within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that we do not include in any establishment more horses than after careful consideration we find to be required.

ULSTER REGIMENTS (DISBANDMENT).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government have in any way modified the decision to disband the regiments of the British Army recruited in Ulster?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is the intention of the Government to retain in the British Army four battalions
recruited in Ulster, namely, the two battalions of the Ulster Rifles and one battalion each of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers and Royal Irish Fusiliers, which will henceforth be linked.

MILITARY TITLES.

Mr. SIMM: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is prepared to take definite steps to protect the value of military titles by devising a distinction between titles held by officers connected with the fighting forces, by those who have been or are connected only with Home service and those engaged in the Salvation Army?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think any satisfactory means can be devised for carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, when he is able to publish the new balance sheets of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, he will also publish unamended the balance sheet of the Expeditionary Force Canteens to 31st August, 1920, as audited by Messrs. Maxwell Hicks and Company, or if there is any reason against ever publishing it?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I have indicated in replies to previous questions, the figures for the period up to 31st August, 1920, are incomplete, and consequently misleading. I do not think, therefore, that it is likely that anything would be gained by publishing them concurrently with the complete figures now in course of preparation, but the question can, if necessary, be considered when we have the later figures.

Sir J. HOPE: When shall we have the figures?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot tell. I have answered the question many times to the effect that they are in course of preparation.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

DISTURBANCES, BELFAST (CASUALITIBS).

Mr. HOGGE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is
in a position to furnish the House with information in regard to the number of persons killed and wounded during the past month in the course of the disturbances in Belfast, and in particular the numbers of Protestants and Catholics, respectively, who have been killed or wounded during that period?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I have obtained a return from the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland giving the figures required for the period 10th February to 26th March. They are as follow:

Protestants: Killed 32, wounded 86.
Catholics: Killed 51, wounded 115.
In addition one military officer and six police, of whom three were Catholics, have been killed, and six soldiers and 11 police, of whom five were Catholics, have been wounded.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the new arrangement with regard to the distribution of Protestants and Catholics in the police force has been satisfactory?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is hardly likely that in a few days the complete transformation of this force in Belfast could have been achieved.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are in Belfast as in other parts of Ireland loyal Catholics who are just as liable to be murdered by the murder gang as the loyal Protestants?

INDEMNITY BILL.

Mr. WATERSON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonios whether he is now in a position to state when the Irish Indemnity Bill will be introduced; and whether the proposed commission to inquire into the claims for compensation in respect of damage to property has yet been appointed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I am not yet able to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 28th March.

Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to do so this side of the Easter Recess?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Speaking at the present moment, I should say it would be rather unlikely.

POSTAGE STAMPS (SURCHARGES).

Sir W. DAVISON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that letters sent to Cork stamped with British stamps overprinted in Erse by the Provisional Government are being marked colonial and surcharged 4d.; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Postage stamps over-printed for use in the Irish Free State are not now valid for prepayment of postage on letters posted outside the Free State.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this letter, to which I refer, was posted some weeks ago, and has been surcharged 4d., and will he, say if there is any special stamp which will take a letter to Cork for 2d.?

Mr. KELLAWAY: If the facts be as stated that surcharge has been improperly made. If I am furnished with the package and I find that surcharge is incorrect, I will see that the 4d. is refunded.

BELFAST MAIL (THEFT).

Mr. LINDSAY: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General if ho is aware that the train which left Belfast at 9.45 p.m. on 14th March was held up by a party of armed men between Goraghwood and Dundalk; can he say whether the registered letters it was conveying were stolen; and whether the theft occurred in Northern Ireland or in Southern Ireland, and what is the amount of the loss involved?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The train was held up at 1.0 a.m. on the 15th of March at Carr's Bridge, Altnaveigh, Co. Armagh, by armed men. According to the reports received, 141 registered letters were taken, but 101 of these were returned intact. The value of the stolen letters is not yet known. Carr's Bridge is in Northern Ireland, about 2½ miles from the border.

Mr. LINDSAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any arrangements to protect this train, as since I put the ques-
tion down it has been raided twice—making three times in all?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The matter is under consideration. I should like to discuss it with my hon. Friend.

ARMS AND AMMUNITION.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 96.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can now announce the arrangements that have been made for restoring the arms and ammunition taken from loyal subjects during the past two or three years by order of His Majesty's Government for safe custody by the Government; whether he can give an assurance that these arms and ammunition will be handed over to their lawful owners by officials of His Majesty's Government without passing through other hands; and whether compensation will be made to the owners for any of this property which has been stolen or lost while in the custody of the Government?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): No announcement can yet be made as to what restrictions the Provisional Government may make as to the possession of arms, and until the Provisional Government have come to a decision on the matter, the restoration of surrendered arms cannot be considered. Where, however, the owners of surrendered arms desire the arms to be restored to them in Great} Britain, they should make application to General Headquarters, Parkgate, Dublin, giving particulars of the arms and furnishing a copy of the receipt given by the military or police officer to whom the arms were surrendered. Arrangements will then be made for their return. The question of compensation in respect of arms which cannot be found will be dealt with if and when it arises, and I am not prepared to give any general undertaking on the subject.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Pending the decision of the Provisional Government, will my right hon. Friend take care that these arms are kept safely in the custody of the British Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: They are now in the custody of the British Government.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will they be kept there?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that the Provisional Government are making any restriction on the carrying or storage of arms?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Provisional Government is considering at present the issue of Regulations governing the carrying of arms.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGUESE EAST AFRICA.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the cruelties now being committed in Portuguese territory east of Nyasaland; and whether, in view of the evil effects on the native public opinion in the neighbouring territories, he will cause representations on the subject to be made to the Portuguese Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Perhaps my Noble Friend will furnish me with particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (JOINT IMMIGRATION BOARD).

Mr. L. MALONE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Joint Immigration Board for Palestine has yet been constituted; and what is its composition, duties, and authority?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The whole matter is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (GOVERNOR'S SALARY).

Major McMICKING: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any change in the salary of the Governor of Malta has been made, or is in contemplation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALM KERNELS, BRITISH WEST AFRICA.

Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the criticism, made at a recent meeting
of the Niger Company, by the hon. W. H. Lever, on British Colonial policy in West Africa, whereby the British West Africans oil trade with the Continent of Europe has been placed in an impossible position; whether British kernel products can only be landed at Continental ports at about £9 per ton, whereas the French product can be sold at £5 per ton; and whether he is in a position to indicate the steps he proposes to take to meet this serious economic situation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to the remarks in question. Palm kernels from British West African Colonies to the Continent are subject to a special differential export duty of £2 a ton, which applies to all palm kernels not shipped to and landed in a port of the Empire. The object of imposing this duty was that there should be an inducement to send the kernels to British ports, in order to encourage the supply of the raw material for British manufacturers. I will consider the question of removing the duty, in the interests of British West African trade, on receipt of the views of the Governments of the British West African Colonies on the recommendations of the Committee on Trade and Taxation for British West Africa. I may add that the Committee did not recommend the removal of the revenue export duty levied in Nigeria.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BICYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received representations from the North Yorkshire and South Durham centre of the National Cyclists' Union protesting against the reimposition of the Bear Light Order for pedal bicycles because of the proved physical impossibility of carrying it out; and will he say what action he proposes to take in consequence?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he has not received the representations mentioned in the question, which in ordinary course would be addressed to me. As re-
gards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the previous answers which I have given.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Member aware that the majority of cyclists on the main roads of the country at night already carry rear lights?

Mr. NEAL: A large number of them do.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that no alteration can be made without further legislation?

Mr. NEAL: That is so.

Mr. MALONE: Will the hon. Gentleman come and ride with me along Watling Street some night?

Mr. NEAL: No, Sir; I will not.

RAILWAY PRIVILEGES (COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).

Sir JAMES BRUTON: 95.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether the raliway companies have now restored to commercial travellers all the pre-War privileges they formerly enjoyed; and, if not, will he represent to the railway companies the earnest hope of commercial travellers that they may again be granted the same facilities for trading extended to them for so many years?

Mr. NEAL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on the 12th ultimo, a copy of which I am sending him.

Sir J. BRUTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply of 13th March was that he was informed that the railway companies proposed substantially to restore the pre-War facilities of commercial travellers, but that the restoration has been confined to week-end tickets?

Mr. NEAL: No, I am not quite familiar with the position as to cloak room charges, but I will look into it, and communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the privileges given to commercial travellers before the War on some companies have not yet been restored while others have done it, and will he take steps to get those conditions restored by those railways which have so far refused?

Mr. NEAL: I understood they had been generally restored, but the Government have no power to control railway companies in these matters.

PROBATION OFFICERS.

Lieut-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to put into force the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Probation Officers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The Report, which has only recently been issued, is receiving careful consideration. I am unable to make any definite statement at present.

MAGISTRATES AND CORONERS COURTS.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: 41.
asked the Home Secretary when he will be in a position to introduce a Bill dealing with the question of the duplication of proceedings in magistrates and coroners' courts?

Mr. SHORTT: It is proposed to deal with this question in the Coroners Bill, but I cannot at present say when it will be introduced.

Major LOWTHER: What is the cause of the delay in introducing the Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman said is so urgent?

Mr. SHORTT: There are a number of causes. One is pressure of other business.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (MATRONS).

Viscount CURZON: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in all police stations in the Metropolitan Police area, there are employed matrons to whom female prisoners can appeal for advice and assistance; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of making such appointments?

Mr. SHORTT: Matrons are employed at all the police stations. Permanent matrons are employed at the busier stations, and at the others, where the number of female prisoners is too small
to justify the appointment of a permanent matron, a temporary matron is employed as and when required.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 43.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to promise separate legislation for Scotland in the matter of allotments?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: When will the Bill be introduced?

Mr. MUNRO: Without any avoidable delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN SHIPPING.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the past our best customers for ships were on the Continent of Europe, and that if Germany is required to build the 120,000 gross tons of new shipping still due from her as reparations this will mean a loss of orders to the shipyards in this country and further unemployment; and, in view of the very serious position of our shipbuilding trade at the present time, will he offer such inducements to our Allies at the Genoa Conference that these claims may be waived as well as our own?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): If the Allies were to agree to waive their right to have ships built in Germany it is unsafe to assume that the ships if built at all would be ordered in this country. As regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. Member on the 21st March.

THRACE.

Mr. L. MALONE: 97.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Thracian Treaty constitutes a revision of any part of the Treaty with Bulgaria already approved by this House; and whether the Thracian Treaty will be submitted to this House for ratification, and when?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I trust that the ratification of this Treaty, the terms of which have already been laid before the House, will not be long delayed. As regards the second part, I anticipate that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the question of Thrace in connection with the settlement in the Near East, which I hope will result from the present negotiations.

Lord R. CECIL: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing this Treaty?

Sir J. D. REES: Is "Thracian Treaty" the official name for the terms now under consideration by the Turks?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, the Thracian Treaty is an entirely different matter. It is a small Treaty signed on the same day as the Treaty of Sèvres and it has been presented to the House.

GERMAN INDEMNITY COAL.

Mr. CAIRNS: 92.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what the price of German indemnity coal was on 1st March, 1922, in-France, if any, in Italy, if any, in Belgium, if any, and the price of English coal, if any, in the three countries referred to?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The price of German indemnity coal chargeable to consumers in France, Belgium, and Italy varies appreciably according to quality, and I regret that information is not available which would enable me to give the figures on a strictly comparable basis. In France on 1st March, 1922, the price of through and through coal delivered at the frontier varied from 28s. 2d. to 29s. 10d. per ton, inclusive of Customs duties. In Belgium in January last the price of manufacturing coal at the frontier varied from 17s. 2d. to 19s. per ton. In Italy in the middle of January the price was 29s. 10d. per ton delivered by rail at the frontier, and 35s. per ton delivered by sea. The price of British coal, c.i.f. Genoa, at the end of February ranged from 32s. per ton for slack to 41s. 6d. per ton for Cardiff coal of first quality. The average declared value f.o.b. of through and through British coal exported in February was 21s. per ton to France and 19s 10d. per ton to Belgium, while the
freights from Cardiff and the Tyne to Havre and Antwerp varied from 6s to 8s. 6d. per ton.

Mr. CAIRNS: Do we send any coal to these places?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give the figures of what we send, but we certainly send some. If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will give him the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

WARRANT OFFICERS' PENSIONS (INCOME TAX).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the pensions of naval warrant officers are subject to payment of Income Tax; and whether he will consider the exemption of these small pensions from taxation?

Sir R. HORNE: There is no exemption from Income Tax in favour of the pensions of naval warrant officers, and I know of no valid grounds on which the exemption suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend could be claimed.

WARRANT OFFICERS' WIDOWS (PENSIONS).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 78.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider the claims of widows of naval warrant officers to some pension after the death of their husbands?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Widows of naval warrant officers who satisfy the conditions laid down in the regulations are already eligible for pensions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING (TAXATION).

Mr. HANNON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has given consideration to the provisions of the United States Revenue Act of last year, which granted exemption from taxation of the income derived from shipping owned by non-residents or foreign corporations belonging to those countries which granted an equivalent exemption to United States vessels; whether he has consulted the Chamber of Shipping and shipping corporations in this country on the subject of international taxation of
shipping; and whether any steps will be taken to arrange reciprocal exemption as between the United States and Great Britain which would confer advantages upon British shipping?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware of the provisions of the United States Revenue Act to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am arranging to receive a deputation on the subject from the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXCHEQUER GRANTS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet set up a Committee to inquire into the methods of making Exchequer grants to local authorities; and, if so, what are the terms of reference?

Sir R. HORNE: Steps are being taken to set up the Committee, but I am not yet in a position to announce its composition. The terms of reference will be as follows: To report what system of Exchequer grants in respect of locally administered services assisted from the Exchequer can be substituted for the percentage grant system, and to what extent and with what exceptions, if any, the alternative system can be applied.

Mr. DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Committee will be formed before Easter?

Sir R. HORNE: That depends on the replies which I receive to the invitations I am giving.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

FIGHTING SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. WISE: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount Germany spent on her army in 1913 and 1921, on her navy in 1913 and 1951, and on her air force in 1913 and 1921?

Sir R. HORNE: No separate provision is made in the German estimates for air expenditure. The army expenditure in 1913–14 was 1,369 millions of marks and in 1921–22 is estimated at 2,989 millions. The corresponding figures for the navy are 480 millions and 689 millions. While
these are actual figures, it must be remembered that they are not comparable, owing to the enormous change in the value of the mark.

Lord R. CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any figures which would be comparable?

Sir R. HORNE: I am sure my Noble Friend will agree that it is very difficult to get at the precise value, because the internal value of the mark is very different to its external value. The exchange markets from day to day reveal the external value, but the internal value, which is a different thing, is very difficult to compute.

TAXABLE CAPACITY.

Colonel NEWMAN: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any attempt has been made to ascertain the taxable capacity in sterling of the German citizen vis-à-vis of the citizen of this country, on the lines that were adopted some years ago in the Report of the Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland; and, if not, will such an inquiry be instituted?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer to both ports of the question is in the negative.

FINANCIAL POSITION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, while at the recent Conference at Paris, he was able to form an estimate as to the danger of the German Republic being faced with bankruptcy in the near future; and were any schemes discussed with the German representatives whereby the national credit might be restored by a return to a policy of strict internal retrenchment and financial reform on the lines that were the rule in Germany before the War?

Sir R. HORNE: The matters to which the hon. and gallant Member refers are within the province of the Reparation Commission, and I am causing to be laid before the House this week the text of the Commission's communication to the German Government.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).

Colonel NEWMAN: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the
International Reparations Commission is about to pay a visit to Berlin; if so, has it the power to take up with the Government of the German Republic the question of the staffs of the various Government Departments; is he aware that the number of hands employed in the German Post Office amounts to 410,000, a rise since before the War of 123,256, although the work of the Post Office is only half as great as before the War; and that paper money is continually being printed to pay the rising salaries of this and other Departmental staffs; will the British representative on the Commission press for the appointment of the equivalent of what is known as the Geddes Committee and the reappointment of a Minister of Economies; and, failing action to be taken to effect the necessary economies and retrenchment, what do the Allied Powers propose to do?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of any immediate intention on the part of the Reparation Commission to visit Berlin. The other matters raised in the hon. and gallant Member's question are for the consideration of the Commission.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last few days the salaries of officials in Germany have been raised by thirty billions of marks?

Sir R. HORNE: I can quite well imagine that from the depreciation of the mark.

Lord R. CECIL: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the Reparation Commission, does he recollect that the British have a representative on it, and that the British Government are responsible to this House for what that representative does?

Sir R. HORNE: That is perfectly true, and I have no doubt he is communicated with from time to time. But that representative exercises certain judicial functions, with which one is not entitled to interfere.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

BRONZE POWDER.

Mr. KILEY: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has
been drawn to a consignment of bronze powder which was detained at Tilbury Docks by His Majesty's officer of Customs on the suspicion that some constituent not normally found in bronze powder might be present and liable to key industry duty; if he is aware that there was no foundation for any such belief, and that, whilst analysis was being made of the goods in question, additional expenses were incurred by the importer; and whether he can in future arrange that, in cases in which there was ground for belief that fraud was attempted, a small quantity of the material in question should be taken for analysis and the bulk released, so as to save the delays and expenses otherwise involved?

Sir R. HORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to his previous question on the same subject on the 15th ultimo. As was then stated, the importer obtained delivery of the goods, pending a decision as to liability, on a deposit being made to cover the possible charge to duty.

Mr. KILEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that after the money has been deposited very often it takes as long as three months before it is possible to get the money returned, and in the mean-time the importer is unable to dispose of the goods.

Sir R. HORNE: I was not aware of that.

Mr. KILEY: Then I will send the right hon. Gentleman details.

WHITE SUGAR OF LEAD.

Mr. KILEY: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the complaint made to the secretary of the Board of Customs and Excise in London by Messrs. Higginbotham, of Manchester, concerning the detention of 11 cases of white sugar of lead, for which the forms and duty had been duly tendered to the Department on the 16th March; that delivery of the cases had been withheld on the ground that the invoice from the suppliers in London is not considered by the Department sufficient, and that the Department demand the production of the invoice from the manufacturers in Germany, which invoice Messrs. Higginbotham say they are unable to obtain as the suppliers refuse to give away their
trade secrets; and that this procedure is not in force at either Liverpool or Hull; and, in order to avoid further expense for breaking-in and breaking-out charges, rent, and demurrage, will he give instructions for the goods in question to be released forthwith and also instruct the staff concerned that they are not unreasonably to withhold clearance of goods except in cases in which they have evidence of fraud or attempted fraud?

Sir R. HORNE: I am informed that the complaint referred to was only received by the Board of Customs and Excise, on the 30th ultimo, and that inquiry is being made into the matter. I will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course

BEER PRICES.

Mr. SIMM: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among beer consumers and if there has been any falling of revenue in consequence; that dissatisfaction is caused by common beer costing 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. less than beer of a reasonable quality being sold in glasses containing 20 per cent. less than the half-pint, for which 5d. is commonly charged, and that this double fraud robs the public of millions yearly in the London area alone; and if he proposes to take steps to protect the revenue and the public?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. As the President of the Board of Trade stated yesterday, he is considering the results of the inquiry on beer prices which has been made by his Department. I am not able to make any statement at present.

Lieut-Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the very important question whether there has been any falling off in revenue? I should like to know that very much.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am afraid I am not able to answer that question.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I will put it down again.

CURRENCY (GOLD COINAGE).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the re-establishment of a free use of gold coinage in place of notes for ordinary purposes of currency?

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot add anything to the answers which I gave to questions by the hon. Member for Govan on 9th February and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth on 2nd March.

TAXATION (GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE AND GERMANY).

Sir W. DAVISON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum raised in taxation in Great Britain, France, and Germany, respectively, in 1913–14; what are the amounts now being raised; and what is the estimated amount of taxation payable per head of the population in each of the three countries prior to the War and at present?

Sir R. HORNE: The statement is in tabular form, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the return show that Germany is now raising less than seventy millions sterling per year in taxation as against about £900,000,000 raised in this country?

Sir R. HORNE: I may say off hand that that cannot be a true account of the position. I really beg hon. Members to appreciate the great difficulty in assessing the precise amount which the German people pay at the present time on account of the enormous variation in the currency with which they are dealing. They put on a tax one day on the supposition it will yield a particular revenue in the course of the year, but the variation the next day puts that entirely out of the picture.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Germany is in fact taxed far loss than the people of this country?

Sir R. HORNE: There is great controversy on that question.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently our
own expert—not a foreign expert at all—reported that 43 per cent. of the total income of Germany is now taken in taxation?

Taxation Revenue.


—
Unit of Currency.
Amount.
Per Head.


1913 or 1913–14.
1921 or 1921–22.
1913 or 1913–14.
1921 or 1921–22.


United Kingdom
…
£
163,035,000
856,713,000*
3.5
18.2


France
…
Francs
3,360,000,000
18,523,000,000
84.5
472.4


Germany
…
Marks
2,110,000,000
61,991,000,000
31.3
1,033.2


* Net taxation receipts for the year, 1921–22, now available.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

SUNDAY DISPATCHES.

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the question of a Sunday dispatch of letters instead of that on Saturday afternoons, in view of the fact that letters posted in the country on Sunday in many districts are not delivered in London till Tuesday morning, and no extra expense will be incurred by this arrangement?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The question of providing a Sunday collection and dispatch of letters is already under consideration.

TELEPHONE CALLS (INTERCEPTION).

Mr. LYLE: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, under any circumstance, and, if so, what, the police are allowed access to telephone conversations intercepted by listeners-in?

Mr. KELLAWAY: In ordinary circumstances the answer is in the negative and I am not aware of any recent cases of the kind. If an application were made by the responsible police authorities that, in the interests of justice, the interception of calls to and from a particular number was necessary, the application would be considered by me.

Mr. MALONE: When was the last application made?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot say offhand. It was a long time ago—it was not made to me, at any rate.

Mr. LYLE: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of officials in any normal telephone exchange engaged in

Sir R. HORNE: I was not aware of that fact.

Following is the statement promised:

the practice of listening-in with the object of checking calls; whether there is any reason for this practice; whether intercepted conversations are used by the Post Office and for what purpose; to whom access to them is permitted; how is the record ultimately destroyed; and whether any subscriber can guarantee privacy for what he wishes to be a private conversation?

Mr. KELLAWAY: As I stated in my answer to the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea South on the 21st of last month, listening-in is only resorted to at the request of, or by agreement with, the subscriber, when the subscriber requires evidence of the unauthorised use of his telephone. No staff is employed specially for this purpose.

MAIL VANS.

Major GLYN: 67.
asked the Postmaster-General how many horse-drawn vehicles and how many motor mail vans are used for the conveyance of mails in the London postal area; whether the mails are more quickly and cheaply delivered by horse-drawn vans; whether the contractor has any inducement to bring the method of transportation up to date; and whether postmen are sent with special late fee letters in horsed hansom cabs to certain London termini?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Six hundred and thirty-three horse-drawn vans and 95 motor vans are at present in use by the contractors for the conveyance of mails in the London postal area. The class of van used depends upon the kind of service to be performed, and upon such factors as waiting time and empty mile-
age. The method of transportation is subject to review when the contracts are renewed. There is no service by postmen in horsed hansom cabs between post offices and the London railway stations.

Major GLYN: Is it the intention of the Postmaster-General to have an inquiry made as to the relative cost of horse transport and motor transport?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, Sir; that inquiry has been going on for some time.

PARCELS, FRANCE.

Mr. HANNON: 68.
asked the Postmaster-General whether under the agreement governing the parcel post service between Great Britain and France responsibility is accepted by the British authorities for loss or non-delivery of insured parcels in France once they have left this country; whether the British authorities have any means of obtaining prompt settlement of compensation by the French authorities when insured parcels are lost or returned undelivered through the fault of the French postal service; and whether, in the event of the French authorities refusing compensation, there is any protection for consignors in this country who have paid insurance fees?

Mr. KELLAWAY: When a parcel for France, whether insured or not, has been duly transferred from the British to the French service and subsequently lost, it rests with the French Post Office to decide whether the loss occurred in circumstances which justify payment of compensation to the sender, and its decision is final. If in a particular case the French Post Office did not communicate the result of its inquiries within a year of its being informed of the loss, the British Post Office would then be justified in paying compensation at the expense of the French. The non-delivery of a parcel which is subsequently returned to the sender does not render the French Post Office liable for the payment of compensation, even if the delay indirectly causes financial loss to the sender or the addressee. The conditions under which compensation is paid in respect of insured postal packets are set out fully in the Post Office Guide.

IMPERIAL CABLE (DEFERRED MESSAGES).

Mr. HURD: 69.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to encourage the use of the Imperial cable by granting lower rates for Press and general messages despatched during the slack hours of the day, and so lessen the peak load of the cables?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Specially low rates are already given on the "Imperial" cable service for non-urgent traffic, which can be held over until the slack hours of the day. The "Imperial" is the only cable route on which the following reduced rate services are provided: A deferred Press service to Canada at 2½d. a word, and to Australia and New Zealand at 4½d.; a deferred service for general traffic to Canada at 4½d. a word, which is 1½d. less than the rate by other cable routes; a week-end service to Australia and New Zealand at quarter rates. A large amount of traffic is sent by these cheap rate services. It is held over whenever necessary in favour of full-rate traffic, which latter is given a rapid service, even at the busiest hours of the day.

Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that no lower rates whatever are given to one Dominion to which the matter is of the greatest importance, namely, Canada, and that the same rate is given by the "Imperial" cable as by the other cables?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have answered the question which my hon. Friend put to me, as to the granting of special rates for a special class of service, and I have shown that these special rates are in fact granted and used.

Mr. HURD: Was not His Majesty's Government a party to a unanimous resolution at the Imperial Conference calling for far lower rates than these which the right hon. Gentleman now announces?

Mr. KELLAWAY: There are demands from all quarters for far lower rates, but I have to have regard to the solvency of the service.

NIGHT TELEGRAPH LETTERS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 70.
asked the Post master-General whether he is prepared to give consideration to the intro-
duction of night letters by telegram (50 words at the day rate of 12) from 7 p.m. or at any later hour?

Mr. KELLAWAY: A service is already in operation under which night telegraph letters may be sent between any two towns in which the head office is open always, for delivery by first post the next morning. They may be handed in at, or telephoned to, a head office with an all-night service at any time before midnight, or posted in time to reach it by midnight. The rate is 1s. for 36 words or less, and 1d. for every 3 words beyond 36.

POST OFFICES (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. MORRISON: asked the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to increasing the postal revenue, he will consider the advisability of letting vacant spaces in post offices for the purposes of advertisement?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have already had this matter under consideration, and have invited tenders, the results of which are under examination.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK (PRICES).

Mr. G. EDWARDS: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the price offered to farmers for milk for the first six summer months is 8d. per gallon and that 2d., the cost of carriage, has to be deducted, leaving to the producer only 6d. per gallon, whereas the price to the consumer has been fixed at 1s. 8d. per gallon, or double the price received by the producer; and if he is in a position to take steps to bring about a more equitable relation as to the prices between the producer and the distributor?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I am aware that a price of 8d. per gallon has been offered to producers, and that 5d. per quart has been mentioned as the probable retail price in London. The cost of carriage will, of course, vary with the distance. As regards the latter part of the question, I mentioned, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Lieut.-Colonel Bell) on the 27th March, that I have personally interviewed several of the big retailers on the question of milk prices, but I have no power to control prices in any way.

Mr. HURD: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the range of milk prices agreed upon between the farmers of the south-western counties and the milk companies for the six summer months; and how the prices now given at the farms compare with those for the milk as delivered in London and also as paid by the consumer?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I can only make a very general statement on this subject. I am informed that in many cases contracts have not yet been settled, but that 8d. per gallon delivered into London is approximately the price which is being offered in the south-western counties. The prices offered by local factories appear to be the equivalent price after, deducting the cost of carriage to London, which naturally varies with the district. The price now being charged to the consumer is in most cases 5d. per quart, or 1s. 8d. per gallon, but I understand that milk is being sold at less than this figure in some places.

Mr. HURD: Does not a very serious situation arise if large numbers of these milk producers are driven out of the business because of the abnormally large margin between the price on the farm and the price to the consumer?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir, I think the situation is serious, and I have been giving it my most anxious attention, and have been in consultation with both producers and distributors. As I have already said, I have no power whatever to intervene to control prices or to fix prices.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not the fact that summer time is increasing the cost of production, and making the situation much more difficult?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

TEMPORARY BUILDINGS (PUBLIC PARKS).

Major GLYN: 76.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state when it is estimated that all the War period buildings in the public parks of the Metropolitan area will have been removed; whether all the buildings in St. James's and Regent's Parks will be removed before the
end of the year; and whether the new buildings at Acton and elsewhere will be ready for use before 1923?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): I am glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that the scheme for the clearance of the Royal Parks and the Embankment Gardens is making very satisfactory progress. Up to the present the demolition of six sets of temporary buildings has actually been completed or is about to be completed shortly. In five of the remaining eases the work of demolition has either started or will be put in hand in the near future. It is expected that by the end of the summer all the temporary buildings will have been cleared away, with the exception of Birdcage House, in St. James's Park, and the Aircraft Disposal Huts and Gloucester Gate Building, in Regent's Park. As regards Birdcage House, I hope it may be possible to start demolition in the autumn. As regards the Aircraft Disposal Huts and Gloucester Gate Building, I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer in the House on the 9th February last, to which I have nothing to add. The new building at Acton is practically complete, and has been partly occupied for nine months. It will be occupied to its fill I capacity by the middle of May next.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Baronet say whether the buildings at Storey's Gate are going to be taken away?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. We hope to start in the autumn.

Sir C. YATE: Have all the hotels and other buildings which have been rented been given up?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I must have notice of that question.

SALARIES.

Mr. RAPER: 85.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the salaries paid to the permanent civil servants at the ages of 18 and 26 years, and the salaries paid to ex-service Grade III clerks who entered the service through the recent competitive examinations?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The salaries of permanent civil servants from
18 to 26 years of age vary according to their grade and to length and character of service therein, and not according to age. In the case of male members of the clerical class in London offices, the salary at 18 years would be £80 per annum; for those of 26 years of age the salary would vary from £80 to £150 per annum. The initial salary of ex-service Grade III clerks who entered the clerical class (London) through the recent limited competitions is £80 per annum. All the above salaries are exclusive of bonus, with which at present rates a salary of £80 per annum becomes £164 per annum.

SPECIAL COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.

Mr. RAPER: 86.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the special competition for the clerical class (male) held in November and December, 1920, and March, 1921, gave satisfactory results as regards the standard of efficiency; and if, owing to the marking of the papers being extraordinarily severe, only 3,900 passed and qualified, and 16,000 failed to reach the qualifying standard?

Mr. YOUNG: At the special competition for the clerical class (men) held in November and December, 1920, and March, 1921, the number of candidates who qualified was 4,094, and the number who failed to reach the qualifying standard was 14,633. This competition was arranged for the purpose of offering an opportunity of entering the Civil Service to men who had served the State during the War, and the standard of ability required for success was somewhat less than the Civil Service Commissioners would expect to obtain by a normal system of recruitment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. C. WHITE: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now prepared to recommend that Article 68 teachers shall be admitted to the benefits of superannuation under similar conditions as other, teachers, especially as they are now recognised as teachers by the Board of Education and the National Union of Teachers, but are unable, owing to the low salaries they receive, to make any provision for the future?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I presume the hon. Member refers to the class of teachers known as "supplementary teachers." I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion that the scope of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, should be extended.

Mr. CAIRNS: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the great amount of discontent amongst teachers and parents that the teachers are complaining that 5 per cent. is going to be kept off their salaries to pay for their pensions, and that parents are discontented with the large increase of the number of children attending elementary schools in the classes; and will he appoint a select committee of the House of Commons to make a full inquiry into these matters, and allow the teachers to give evidence?

Mr. FISHER: I am aware of the views of teachers in respect of the proposed contribution to the cost of the pension system, but I have no evidence of the dissatisfaction of the parents on the point referred to. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answers previously given.

DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any official information showing that the London County Council do not propose to take action against young persons legally required to attend continuation schools under the London County Council; and, if so, if he will say what action he proposes to take?

Mr. FISHER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CANTERBURY ROAD, LEYTONSTONE.

Mr. MALONE: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the elementary school in Canterbury Road, Leytonstone, is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the district; that overflow premises have had to be acquired; that one of these premises is the St. Paul's parish hall, containing about 170 boys; that this hall accommodates four classes without partitions, is overcrowded, badly lighted, inadequately ventilated, has no washing accommodation, and has no cloak room; that the headmaster has to divide his time
between this establishment and another hall over half a mile away, causing waste of time and efficiency; that there is no space for physical exercise, that the small yard is under water in wet weather; that the hall is used at night for sundry purposes, which results in loss of school utensils; and that it is therefore unhealthy and unsuitable in every respect for school work; and whether, taking into consideration the large number of unemployed available locally, he will at once put in hand the construction of a proper school?

Mr. FISHER: I am aware that the conditions under which this school is conducted are not satisfactory, though my information does not support the hon. Member's description of them. I am, however, obtaining a special report upon the premises and the school accommodation in the neighbourhood.

Mr. MALONE: If the report is unfavourable, can Ave be assured that proper facilities will be provided?

Mr. FISHER: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: 98.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Spanish Government were consulted before the control of the international company for the construction of the Port of Tangier was handed over to France; and, if so, did the Spanish Government approve this arrangement?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt referring to the transfer to the Shereefian Government of the ex-enemy shares in the international company formed in 1914. The Spanish Government was unaware of the change as was also His Majesty's Government until after it had been effected, and they have both declined to acquiesce in the grant of the concession to the company as at present constituted.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE).

Mr. RAPER: 87.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that temporary ex-service men, on being made permanent through the recent competitive examinations for the clerical class, Civil Service, are at, an average of,
say, 33 years paid at the rate of £80 per year, plus bonus, the same emolument as paid to a boy of 18 entering the clerical class direct from school; and if a communication has been received by the Treasury from the Civil Service Arbitration Board stating that they advise varying the commencing salary of £80 only on the question of hardship?

Mr. YOUNG: The initial salary of entrants to the male clerical class (London) from the recent limited competition is, in the case of ex-Grade III clerks. £80 per annum plus bonus, making at present rates £164 per annum I have no precise figures as to the ages of the men in question; the normal entering age of a boy fresh from school would be nearer 17 than 18, and he would be paid £60 plus bonus. The arrangements in regard to entering salaries of recruits from the limited competitions are as recommended by the Lytton Committee and recently endorsed by the Civil Service Arbitration Board. The Board accompanied their award by a letter suggesting that it might be possible to deal specially with individual cases of hardship, and, while I doubt if it will be possible to take any action on this suggestion, I am giving it careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS AMMUNITION (BREAKING UP).

Mr. WATERSON: 88.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the Tipton disaster, with the loss of so many lives, he will consider the advisability of the Government breaking up its surplus ammunition by fully qualified persons in the Government's own establishments?

Mr. YOUNG: After careful consideration, the Government are not prepared to adopt this suggestion. If contractors observe the precautions prescribed by Statute and Regulation for those dealing with explosives, there is no reason why breaking-down operations should be attended with greater risk in private factories than in Government establishments.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS (CLEARANCES).

Mr. KILEY: 89.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware
that there is continued delay in the clearance of parcels in London as a result of the collection of reparation, safeguarding of industries, and other import duties; whether his attention has been called to Notice No. 1922/12,627, dated 27th March, which contained the notification from the Customs and Excise office at Mount Pleasant of the arrival, on 16th March, of certain packages in London; and whether a method can be devised by which notice could be sent in all cases within 48 hours of arrival instead of, as in this case, 11 days?

Mr. YOUNG: As I have previously stated, a certain amount of delay is inevitable in the delivery of parcels liable to Customs duties or reparation levy, but every effort is made to reduce it to the minimum. It is only in exceptional circumstances that an interval of 48 hours is exceeded between the time any given mail is presented for Customs examination by the postal authorities and the time the notice of arrival is issued. The particular notice referred to cannot be identified from the reference quoted, but about the period mentioned there was some exceptional delay due to temporary congestion caused by the simultaneous arrival at Mount Pleasant Depot of a number of mails which had been delayed by the strike in Germany.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT, 1920.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 91.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in estimating the means of a pensioner for the purpose of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, the practice is to ascertain whether his means, including his pension, for a whole year exceeds the prescribed amount; and whether, if his means for some portion of the year are at a rate exceeding the prescribed amount, but taken over a whole year are less than the prescribed amount, the practice is to deduct from the increase of pension a proportionate amount for the period during which his means were at a rate exceeding the prescribed amount?

Mr. YOUNG: The amount of the increase to be granted under the Act is determined by reference to the means of the pensioner as disclosed in the declaration for the preceding 12 months, provided that the pension authority may take into consideration any material
change of circumstances, and that the increase will not continue to be paid if the pensioner ceases to fulfil the statutory conditions. In so far as I appreciate the meaning of the hon. Baronet, the procedure indicated in the latter half of the question is not that which is adopted by pension authorities.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Am I right in supposing that if a man is a little over the prescribed amount for a month but a little under the prescribed amount for the whole year the whole year will be taken as the test?

Mr. YOUNG: Generally speaking, I think that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIAN BUTTER.

Mr. SEDDON: 93.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the cost of Australian butter has risen in the following order: 1st March 130s. per cwt., 9th March 133s. per cwt., 16th March 144s. per cwt., 23rd March 163s. per cwt., and 30th March 184s. per cwt., and this notwithstanding the fact that 500,000 boxes, equal to 250,000 cwts., considerably over normal, entered the Port of London this month; and whether, seeing that this increase in price in this staple article of food, which is still rising, is being cornered by a financial ring, thereby creating profiteering, which is adding to the increased cost of living in this country, with falling rates of wages, he will state what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am aware of the substantial rise which has taken place during March in the wholesale price of Australasian butter. While the receipts of such butter in the Port of London have been large, as stated in the question, the shipments to the Continent have also been unusually large. Full results for March are not yet available, but in February the re-exports were so large that the quantity retained in the United Kingdom was less than in February last year. The information at my disposal does not confirm the assertions in the latter part of the question.

Mr. SEDDON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is being sent out in parcels from day to day, but each day sees an increase in price from the same stock?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, I am not aware of that, and such information as I have does not go to confirm it. I may observe that owing, on the one hand, to the competition of the multiple shops in selling, and, on the other hand, to the fact that every rise in price tends to throw in more margarine as a substitute, if there is one article it is very difficult and almost impossible to corner it is butter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN (LEGITIMATION).

Captain BOWYER: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now say when the Bill will be introduced dealing with the legitimation by subsequent marriage?

Mr. SHORTT: The question of legislation on this subject is under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Captain BOWYER: If I put down a question for this day week will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot promise definitely, but I hope so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Baronet the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) wish to ask leave to make a personal explanation?

Sir J. D. REES: I did not indicate any determination to do so to-day. I thought that, as I shall be speaking at some length later in the day, it would be better not to trouble the House with anything else now, and therefore I postpone it.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

EASTER HOLIDAYS.

On this day two weeks, to call attention to the question of Easter holidays, and to move a Resolution.—[Commander Bellairs.]

NATURALISATION CERTIFICATES.

On an early day, to call attention to the administration of the Home Office, so far as naturalisation certificates are concerned, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Kiley.]

MOTIONS (BALLOT).

On this day two weeks, to call attention to the folly of balloting for resolutions which there is no opportunity of moving, and to move a Resolution.—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. Hoare.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

AIR MINISTRY (KENLEY COMMON) ACQUISITION BILL,

"to confirm an agreement between the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London and the President of the Air Council in relation to the acquisition of certain lands in the county of Surrey; and for purposes in connection therewith," presented by Captain GUEST; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

KENYA DIVORCES (VALIDITY) BILL,

"to make provision with respect to the validity of decrees granted in the Kenya Colony and Protectorate for the dissolution of the marriage of persons domiciled in the United Kingdom," presented by Mr. EDWARD WOOD; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

CANALS (CONTINUANCE OF CHARGING POWERS) BILL,

"for the continuance of Charging Powers in respect of Canal or Inland Navigation Undertakings of which possession was retained or taken by the Minister of Transport under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919," presented by Mr. NEAL; supported by Mr. Hilton Young; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

ASSURANCE COMPANIES.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, with respect to the information supplied by such companies in the annual accounts with regard to investments.
At a meeting of creditors of the City Equitable Insurance Company yesterday the statement of the Official Receiver made it clear that the main cause of the failure of the company has been the im-
proper investment of its funds. The object of the Bill which I am asking leave now to introduce is to make it less easy, or as impossible as it can be made by legislation, that such a thing should occur again. Insurance companies, as the House knows, always have a certain amount of funds to invest. They obtain their premiums directly they take their risks, but the claims which are due on their funds eventually do not come in for possibly 12 months or, in the case of marine insurance companies, for two or three years or possibly longer. It therefore devolves on the directors of insurance companies to invest those funds in such a way that there may be as little capital depreciation as possible, and that the investments may be easily realised when the time comes for paying their claims.
Parliament has already recognised that insurance companies are in a different position from ordinary industrial companies. An ordinary industrial company is really responsible to its shareholders, and to its shareholders alone. A man who gives credit to an ordinary industrial company has the remedy, if his debt is not paid, of suing it. If he hears rumours that the company is in a bad way he can immediately take steps to recover whatever is due to him. But in the case of an insurance company the policyholder has no remedy whatever. He has paid his premiums, but he has no rights whatever until the day comes when he can make his claim on the company to have it settled, and until then he can do nothing, no matter how the company may be going, and no matter what rumours may be in circulation concerning it. So Parliament recognised the particular position of insurance companies, and by the Assurance Companies Act of 1909 laid down that every insurance company should publish every year, first, a revenue account set out in the form prescribed in the Schedule to the Act; second, a profit and loss account, also in a form prescribed in the Schedule to the Act; and, finally, a balance sheet, also in the form prescribed by the Act. But the assets there are grouped under certain headings, and there is no necessity to show the details under each heading. If the City Equitable had been obliged to give details of its investments under each heading it would never have come to grief as it did.
In this morning's paper we see that the Official Receiver told the creditors yesterday that the miscellaneous securities of the company were £733,600. He said that there was no market for many of the latter, and that they would show a diminution of several hundred thousand pounds. Some details were given to the creditors yesterday. The directors of the City Equitable had invested money in a ranch in Brazil. They had gradually put money into it since 1919; it is clear too that a great deal of the money under miscellaneous securities has been invested in shares of industrial companies which the Chairman of the City Equitable and his firm promoted, and it is known that some of those securities, for which the City Equitable paid £l per share, have dropped to 2s. or 3s. per share. I want in passing to call attention to the fact that in the annual accounts of one of our big insurance companies they have not merely given the revenue account and the profit and loss account, and the balance sheet required by the Statute, but at the end of the annual report they have a number of pages setting out in full detail the whole of their investments, so that shareholders and others can see at once what has been done with the money which was available for investment. The directors say in their report:
In view of the failure of certain insurance offices established in recent years, the directors decided this year to publish a detailed list of the company's investments, and that is included in the present account.
What this company has done voluntarily I am asking by my small Bill that every insurance company should be compelled to do. I do not think it necessary that we should ask for details under every head. For example, every insurance company lends money to its own policy holders on the security of the policies within the surrender value. That is a matter between the insurance company and the policy holders, and there is no necessity to ask for those details to be given, and they are excluded from this Bill, and there may be one or two other cases in which similar allowance should be made. I am told that the large insur-

ance companies in this country are opposing this Bill. I cannot understand how a large insurance company, well conducted, can in any way oppose it. The more details the companies give the better they show their position; the more the directors show that by wise and discreet investments they have the money safe for the benefit of policy holders and shareholders, the more they will attract business and deflect it from those the investment of whose funds is not so good. British insurance companies have a reputation which is world-wide. When we go abroad we are proud of their position among the traders of the world. If our insurance companies were compelled by Statute to state all their investments, it would make the position of the companies in this country even stronger than it is to-day, and would prevent a repetition of the terrible catastrophe of the City Equitable Company.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Holmes, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Bell, Mr. Walter Smith, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Gould, Mr. Wallace, Colonel Penry Williams, Colonel Roundell, and Mr. William Graham.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL,

"to amend the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, with respect to the information supplied by such companies in the annual accounts with regard to investments," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Second Bending of the East India Loans (Railways and Irrigation) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 79.

Division No. 74.]
AYES.
[3.54 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Astor, Viscountess


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Armitage, Robert
Atkey, A. R.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Baird, Sir John Lawrence


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greer, Sir Harry
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Perkins, Walter Frank


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gretton, Colonel John
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Barker, Major Robert H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pratt, John William


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hallwood, Augustine
Rae, H. Norman


Barrand, A. R.
Hall, Rt-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l.W.D'by)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hancock, John George
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Remer, J. R.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Remnant, Sir James


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Haslam, Lewis
Renwick, Sir George


Betterton, Henry B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bigland, Alfred
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Hills, Major John Waller
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Rodger, A. K.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling&Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Seager, Sir William


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Seddon, J. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bruton, Sir James
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Simm, M. T.


Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jameson, John Gordon
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Johnstone, Joseph
Stanton, Charles Butt


Butcher, Sir John George
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Carter, R. A. D. (Man, Withington)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stewart, Gershom


Casey, T. W.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Kidd, James
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sugden, W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Sutherland, Sir William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Lindsay, William Arthur
Taylor, J.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Lloyd, George Butler
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Clough, Sir Robert
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lorden, John William
Tickler, Thomas George


Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Waddington, R.


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Wallace, J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Waring, Major Walter


Edge, Captain Sir William
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Evans, Ernest
Mason, Robert
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Matthews, David
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Fildes, Henry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morrison, Hugh
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Windsor, Viscount


Forrest, Walter
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Winterton, Earl


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wise, Frederick


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gange, E. Stanley
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Neal, Arthur
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Gardiner, James
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gardner, Ernest
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gee, Captain Robert
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel Sir John
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Younger, Sir George


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



Grant, James Augustus
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
McCurdy.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark



Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Parker, James





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Halls, Walter
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Banton, George
Hartshorn, Vernon
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Robertson, John


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rose, Frank H.


Bromfield, William
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hogge, James Myles
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sitch, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Irving, Dan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, John Edward


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Swan, J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kiley, James Daniel
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Devlin, Joseph
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Foot, Isaac
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Galbraith, Samuel
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gillis, William
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Wintringham, Margaret


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Rattan, Peter Wilson



Hallas, Eldred
Rendall, Athelstan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Dr. Murray and Mr. Mills.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill): Sir Ernest Pollock, Sir John Baird, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Munro, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Pownall, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Shortt, Lieut.-Colonel John Ward, and Mr. Charles White.

Report to lie upon the Table.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS' ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURE.

Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
inasmuch as expenditure upon public assistance has, so far as can be ascertained from Parliamentary publications, risen from £25,000,000 in 1890–91 to £332,000,000 in 1920–21, and will probably be not less than £400,000,000 in 1921–22, while 30,000,000 persons, exclusive of unemployed, out of a population of 48,000,000, have actually been in receipt of such public assistance in 1919–20, it is desirable that in order to safeguard the threatened financial stability of the United Kingdom, a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into, or a Board appointed to take over the rationing of, all such expenditure, in view of its proper co-ordination, and reduction within such limits as the taxpayers and ratepayers can afford.
When a Member has an opportunity, owing to the luck of the ballot, to put forward an Amendment of this kind, it becomes him to be chary in expressing his own opinions at large and to raise some question of general public interest and elicit some information of public value. I should lose time in showing that the finances of the country at the present time are in an exceedingly unfortunate position, and I shall not spend time in so doing. But there are two reasons for this. One is the War, and that is a waning reason. Every month it gets less and less, and will disappear. There is another reason, and that is the policy of expenditure at home upon what is known as the Civil Services. That is a waxing, perpetually increasing item, and it is to that we must look in future as the chief difficulty to be met in bringing the expenditure of the country within reasonable limits. This system, which is called Social Reform by those who like it, Socialism by those who dislike it, and Bolshevism or Communism by those who detest it, is practically, in
its essential features, one and the same system. I am not attempting to attack any Government or any party on this score. Indeed, having had the curiosity to look over the procession of parties in this House, I find that during the last 35 years in which the cyclone of social reform has rushed along its furious orbit, that the two historic parties have occupied these benches for almost equal periods. Therefore, this is not a question that can be regarded as a party one.
This policy, in a word, is the substitution of public assistance for individual effort. It may be impossible to continue it in a poorer world, or it may be possible. That is not for me to say. It may be a great world movement, irresistible in its impact. It may be fairly argued by looking around us upon other nations that that is so. But what is the standard to which this policy looks? I have never discovered it. Knowing only one world, my habit, as one who has travelled a great deal, has been to compare the standard prevailing in different countries. But that is not the way of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who set up an ideal standard and then declare we should attain to it in some way or another. That may be a practicable or impracticable policy, but I believe it is their policy, and I only wish to make one remark upon it, that, having exercised observation as a traveller, I have never seen this ideal standard so nearly approached in any country in the world as in our own. However that may be, it is clear that the Socialist party—I do not know if I am speaking of the Labour party, and I am anxious not to say a word which would exhibit an opinion one way or another or show in what way my sympathies lies: but, whether it is good or bad, the party I have the honour to address opposite has always been in favour of higher expenditure, and even the Army and Navy are no exceptions to that movement, because the higher cost of the Army and Navy is entirely due to the higher level of wages paid in the Army and Navy, and those wages the hon. Members opposite would never think of reducing. These are facts which are not realised by the country. The situation would be comic if it were not so tragic, when we see the gross expenditure on the Civil Services believed to be the bloated emoluments of an overwhelming Civil Service! I do not suggest at all, though
I said that the party opposite always favour this gross expenditure—I do not suggest that it is only due to them. Indeed, the Civil Service bonus was an effort made by a totally different interest, and to calculate pensions upon this bonus was really one of the greatest attempts made to increase the expenditure of the country in a permanent manner since I have entered this House.
The question is whether it is possible or not possible to maintain this expenditure. It is right, at any rate, to take stock now and again of the expenditure by which this policy is being pursued—the expenditure to which the country is being put, not only out of the taxes, but also out of the rates, and to urge that certain steps be taken for regarding that expenditure in a more practical manner and bringing it more frequently and more correctly before the country. There are not wanting signs that the stream out of which those social services are extended is running dry. Take the Super-tax, which is an annual capital levy, and the Death Duties, which are not an annual levy, but a levy paid by a man once in his life—when he dies! There are signs that these sources are to a great extent running dry, and I understand, though I do not know how the information leaked out—and I shall refrain from telling the House because I am not quite sure that I could indicate what the sources of this information are, but I understand that the chief inquisitor who squeezes the last drop of blood out of the super taxpayer is now confronted with an enormous number of people who have no blood left. Of course the increase of social services is no doubt exceedingly popular. It is most attractive with the unthinking masses, and it enables the individual candidate to go before them with a gift in his hands, in a manner which was familiar to me in the East where gift are very much given, though not at elections of course, because they have few elections there. One cannot help remembering various instances of this kind. I can never forget, for instance, the inscription on the bridge which a certain Mr. Jones built of his great bounty at the expense of the county. It is always done at someone else's expense. These are circumstances on which it is necessary to dwell—it seems to me to be extremely important, in view of the Motion which by a curious coinci-
dence comes on to-day at a quarter past eight—but it is the fact at any rate that the large expenditure required does not come entirely out of the pockets of the Income Tax payer. It is paid also by indirect taxes on sugar, tea, beer and tobacco, and these are direct taxes upon wages.
I wonder whether these facts are appreciated when those perpetual advances in social reform are recommended and carried. It seems to me they cannot possibly be. It is impossible to support any of those social services and say that it shall fall upon a particular class of the taxpayer. It is no more possible to do that in a country, which is an aggregate of homes, than it would be in any one home to apportion different parts of the meal on the table to different members of the family and to say they should contribute to providing the meal in different proportions. My Amendment necessarily includes rates. These are in the Geddes Report, but my Amendment does not impinge upon the Geddes Report for the all-important reason that the Geddes Report does not include Poor Law and such subjects. My Amendment recommends no legislation; if it did so, it would not be in order, but it is relevant to my purpose to point out that local bodies, nominally independent are really the slaves of the central Government. They work under skeleton Acts of Parliament which are filled in by Orders in Council and the Departments have the conclusive power of giving or withholding Exchequer grants. Look at the case of the rates for housing. Anything over one penny falls upon the general taxpayer, but that does not save the ratepayer anything; it only empties his other pocket.
I do not propose to be historical for more than a minute or two, but if the House will bear with me it will serve my purpose to treat the subject in this way. When did this policy begin? There was a Report by a Commission on the Poor Law in 1834 which laid down certain main principles, the first of which was that the recipient of public charity should not be placed in a position more eligible than that of the poorest of the independent working men. Others were that destitution must be relieved, but that there must be some more or less disagreeable test; that there should be a central board to supervise these grants,
and that powers should be localised, local action being the very life blood of the sound economic treatment of these matters. Under those rules there arose many highly important, powerful, and altogether beneficial bodies—friendly societies, trade unions, and building and co-operative societies. In point of fact, at that time private effort provided everything which has since been thrown back upon the tax and rate payers in the name of social reform. All that development of policy was entirely good, and it was kept within proper financial limits, but in 1905 a change set in. There then came along a different policy. I really do not know what to call it, but it would be simpler to call it Socialism, and we had immediately following one another—I remember them all—the following Acts: in 1905 the Unemployed Workmen Act; in 1906 the Provision of Meals for School Children; in 1906 the Education Administrative Provisions Act; in 1908 the Old Age Pensions Act; in 1911 the National Health Insurance Act, and since that there have been the late Unemployment Insurance Act, Housing Acts, the unemployment dole, the payment of Members of Parliament and, in some cities, at any rate, the payment of mayors.
By 1912, the failure of this policy which was begun in 1905 had already become apparent. That was evidenced by financial and economic disturbance in the country. It is perfectly clear, and we know it from experience, that it is quite possible for a State, and a prosperous State, to have two classes of citizens, namely the self-supporting, and the socially reformed. But they can only exist together when the socially reformed are a small proportion of the self-supporting. We have reached a point where they are no longer a small proportion, but are half, and over, and the fact of the danger point having been reached, is what induces me to put down this Amendment and to venture to trespass upon the indulgence of the House. In the nineteenth century Socialism or social reform—I do not know the difference, but let us call it Socialism because that saves time and saves one word—kept off doles, regarding them as dangerous. In the twentieth century Socialism in this country satisfies the private wants of millions out of the public purse, and no further stigma,
hesitation or dislike attaches to the receipt of money from the tax and ratepayer. No class in the country, no section, grade or plane, no portion of the population has been so much affected by this as the wage earning class.
If you took the whole income of the Income Tax payer as you now take half, it would be quite unequal to continuing the stream of benefits which flows out into the country like a stream of gold, and on Fridays overflows into the most distant countries. What, then must be done? The first requisite in dealing with any financial situation is to have your accounts in order and to see how you stand. Every prudent man does that; very few of us can avoid doing it nowadays, to find if we can afford to pay our way. In pursuance of that, and in order to satisfy that need, a return has been granted by Parliament—a very valuable return—which is often called the Drage return, because of the efforts of the admirable public man who was chiefly associated with it. I beg that hon. Gentleman will not be alarmed when they see me opening this return. I do not propose to make more than a small draft upon it, and will endeavour not to weary the House with a mass of figures, though I, myself, when I found I was to have this opportunity of going into the matter, wallowed wearily in the slough of statistics for two or three days. I see here in the figures relating to the year ending March, 1920, that National Insurance (Health) Act represents £23,000,000, Old Age Pensions £13,000,000, and Education Acts £58,000,000. Education has moved up from £10,000,000 in 1891 to £16,000,000 in 1901, and to £29,000,000 in 1911, and it was £58,000,000 in March, 1920. It will not have been much under double that on the 31st March last, when the official year ended.
There are many other items which I could go into, though I think I should be better advised not to do so, but I may point to the figures relating to Old Age Pensions. In 1911 you had £6,000,000; it was £13,000,000 in 1920, and I think it was £18,000,000 or £19,000,000 at the end of the year just concluded. I do not know how many more millions will be added this evening—although this is not even a Friday—but a proposal in that direction will be before the House. Then we have the Acts relating to the relief of the
poor, and I beg the House to note that though this item was to have been reduced proportionately with the increase in Old Age Pensions it has oddly enough mounted up in almost the same proportion because we have £8,000,000 in 1891, £11,000,000 in 1901, £15,000,000 in 1911, and £23,000,000 in 1920. The sum and substance of the whole matter is, and I now promise to put this Return away—that you had upon these social services an expenditure of £257,000,000 on the 31st March, 1920. This Return deals with expenditure under the following Acts, namely, National Insurance (Health); National Insurance (Unemployment); War Pensions and Ministry of Pensions; Old Age Pensions Act; Education Acts; Acts relating to Reformatory and Industrial Schools; Inebriates Acts; Public Health Acts so far as they relate to hospitals, etc.; Housing of the Working Classes Acts; Acts relating to the Relief of the Poor; Unemployed Workmen Act; and Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Acts. That is the ambit of this statement—?

Dr. MURRAY rose—

Sir J. D. REES: If my hon. Friend will so far minister to my weakness as to allow me to go on, I shall willingly submit to anything he may say as soon as I have finished. Then take the number of beneficiaries under these Acts. On 31st March, 1920, there were 28,000,000, and on 31st March, 1921, there were 30,000,000. These figures do not include the unemployed, and, of course, the numbers will be very much larger when the returns come out for 1922. The figures in the return I have quoted for 1920 show a total sum for all these social services of £257,000,000. For the year 1921–22, I gather from the Geddes Report, there will be a saving of £2,000,000 on War pensions. But there will be additions of £30,000,000 under the Education Acts; £10,000,000 for houses; £78,000,000 for the Labour Department; and £12,000,000 under new legislation, which will make the figure for these social services £385,000,000 on the 31st March, 1922. To that must be added a considerable sum for the expenditure of local councils on housing not yet ascertained; greater expenditure by guardians on distress this winter, not yet ascertained; and the large sums detailed by the Minister of Labour at the beginning of the Session, including £40,000,000 spent by the State and by the munici-
palities on productive unemployment schemes since the autumn of 1920.
I think I am very well within the mark, in the figure given in my Motion, namely, £400,000,000, as the amount which will be found to have been spent on social services up to the 31st March. The figure of the recipients will be much larger than 30,000,000, because of the large numbers of unemployed and others who will come in. Anxious as I am to escape from figures—for which I have no love—there is one figure with which I must deal. The figure of £78,000,000 for the Labour Department is so large that it would not be proper to pass it over without some explanation. It is made up of the following items: £10,000,000 odd for the training and resettlement of ex-service men—[HON. MEMBEES: Do you object to that?"]—£7,000,000 odd contribution to unemployment fund, £55,000,000 odd unemployment benefit, and nearly £6,000,000 for administrative expenses. Therefore, to summarise what, I hope, has not been too long a recital, we have a total amount of something like £430,000,000, and when you take away a sum of about £30,000,000 for contributions under the Insurance Acts, it will work out to something like £400,000,000 on the 31st March. I recognise the responsibility which I have in addressing the House on this matter, and I did not venture to put these figures together without taking advice in the best possible quarter available, which confirmed my figures, though it did not supply me with any of the evidence. This Return to which I have referred does not, of course, deal with overlapping. There should be some register of persons in receipt of local assistance, for quite recently the Poplar Board of Guardians refused to communicate to the London County Council School-Care Committees, which are responsible for providing free meals to necessitous children, information as to persons receiving relief in their area. One can understand that in Poplar, perhaps, but it shows the urgent need of co-ordination, registration, and something to prevent overlapping and excessive expenditure.
Let me now come to the total expenditure of the year. In 1900 it was £90,000,000, in 1905 £150,000,000, in 1911 £178,000,000, and in 1921–22 £1,146,000,000. If I deduct from this figure of
£1,146,000,000 the sum of £500,000,000, due for War pensions and other services due to the War, I have left £650,000,000, and that is the figure of the ordinary expenditure of the country which falls to be compared with the £150,000,000, for instance, which was the total in 1905. I think it will be found that that £500,000,000 is mostly expended upon social services, that is to say, upon the substitution of public help for individual effort. Of course, this increase in expenditure is due in part to the decrease in the value of money, but only in part. It affects wages and salaries, but it does not hold through all the figures with which I have dealt, and nothing can mend the situation but less expenditure and less taxation. Two shillings off the Income Tax is £100,000,000. The Corporation Profits Tax, if lifted, would be £30,000,000. Decreases, which are urgently desired in the interests of the wage-earning classes, in the duties on tea, beer, and tobacco should be at least £100,000,000 off the £320,000,000 now collected, and as the Leader of the House said £170,000,000 was required for other purposes, as far as I can make out £400,000,000 should be saved in order to produce anything like an equilibrium and safety, and the whole of that amount it is almost impossible to save except by reducing these very social services to which my Amendment applies. Yet, when you come to the concrete recommendations made, what do you find? I am not expressing any opinions upon any of these points. I am laying them before the House to the best of my ability, and I am very grateful to it for its patience in listening to me. The Select Committee on National Expenditure in 1920 said the Board of Education was characterised by financial laxity and seemed to think increased expenditure was increased efficiency. The Royal Commission on the Poor Laws said that outside the profession there was a strong general feeling that the education provided in the elementary schools at this very high cost was not of a kind which was helpful in after life. I express no opinion on that subject, having received no education at school which was of any use to me in after life whatsoever, and so I feel now quite unfitted to express any opinion on the subject, but whereas formerly parents were looked to
to provide for their children and scholarships and university education were only considered to be necessary for exceptionally clever boys, the theory seems to be now that these opportunities should be provided for everybody, which really does not happen in the families of the richest people in any country. It is solely a question of cost.
Education in 1891 cost £7,000,000, and it was promised that it would not cost more than 3d. in the £. Now I shall not enter upon the question as to whether or not the system of making the family responsible is worth preserving, but an aspect of the case more immediately germane to my Amendment is that a Report of the London County Council in 1910 stated that necessitous children were not necessarily ill-nourished, but the Council provided food lest they should become so. It seems, then, that we have under education not merely the feeding of necessitous children, but the preventive feeding of children. I confess that this was to me a surprise, and without expressing any opinion about it I say it does indicate the enormous sweep which Socialism already embraces in its orbit. Education now not only deals with growth of character and mind, but with physical deterioration, with under-feeding, with bad homes, with dentistry, with the provision of a national nursery—which is naturally highly valued and which may be the best thing in the world, but is not education—with the training of domestic servants, with the higher education for officers—which, I gather, is to cost £8,000,000 and not £6,000,000, as the President of the Board informed me—and with many other similar services which must, I think, be described as social services. For instance, the education of youths from Serbia would be considered social, I suppose; I do not know what else one would call it. Then the women police is a social matter, and the special education provided in the Army, and British agriculture blushes to find itself in this list, and there is the National Health Insurance. I have only one sentence on each of these subjects, though, had I time, it would be easy to enlarge upon them all.
Under National Health Insurance, the Ministry of Health in 1920 cost about £25 for the administration of every £100. It was formerly done by clubs and club doctors, which were provided by the patients themselves. Under Unemploy-
ment Insurance, it must have been a shock to many to find that the Bill postulates the presence of an army of unemployed of a million and a half at the end of this summer, which I confess fills me with alarm. Take the old age pensions, which, of course, are not really pensions, because it is not deferred pay given after a life spent in the service of some particular person or corporation so as to deprive the person receiving it of his or her individual liberty. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), the Leader, or one of the Leaders, of the party opposite, said in 1908 that no Chancellor of the Exchequer in his senses, having regard to the needs of the nation, would think of adding £3,000,000 to the very considerable sum of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 which he proposed by this scheme that the country should incur. It has gone from £7,000,000 to £9,000,000, and from £9,000,000 to £19,000,000. Perhaps the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) will remember these words of his Leader. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not his Leader."] Those receiving old age pensions are divorced from the Poor Law, but they are able under the Poor Law when necessitous to get help and medical treatment and comforts. One word only on housing, another of these social services. The Minister of Health stated that the Government had contributed £190,000,000 towards housing, and that no Government ever did this before. I should think not. He said:
We assumed formerly that people would pay for their own houses, that houses were a commercial article and not a charity, but the Government, rightly recognising the difficulties that have arisen during the War, launched out in this scheme.
Heaven knows I am not criticising them, nor have I expressed any opinion upon any of these items, not one—I protest I have not. If hon. Members think the figures I have given condemn the system, then by the figures and not by me is it condemned. Private enterprise made a profit out of this branch of business. The annual deficit on 300,000 houses now is £18,000,000, without subsidies, and the cost in 60 years is to be £700,000,000. Thy Poor Law has not gone down on account of the old age pensions. Social legislation has increased the demands upon the Poor Law at every turn, and there is every reason to suppose that what has been, will be, and that history will repeat itself in this particular. The
transfer of the Poor Law to the county councils is contemplated. All I have to say on that is that the Chairman of the Poor Law Commission said it would result in complete administrative chaos and universal local bankruptcy, and would probably cost from £50,000,000 to £80,000,000. I very much hope it will not be done in my district at any rate, for the guardians there have done their work admirably well, and I should not like to see any change.
How is this state of affairs, supposing hon. Members think, as I gather they do, that there is something censorious, almost condemnatory, in the figures which, after much care, I have ventured to put before the House, to be prevented? It rests with the House of Commons, that wasteful body, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer called it, the body that forced the Government against its will to increase the pensions to the police, that gave it a beggarly majority of 12 when there was an addition proposed of £15,000,000 to old age pensions, that proposes every Friday some fresh expenditure, that is apparently willing that no recommendation of any of the Committees dealing with these subjects should ever get beyond the paper on which they are printed. What is to be done? In 1919 the present Leader of the House said:
If we continue spending in this way we are heading straight for national bankruptcy,
I suggest—it may be a very modest suggestion after the figures I have given—that an extremely important step would be, in proper housekeeping, to have your household accounts in order, to have this excellent statement. Command Paper No. 189 of 1921, brought up to date, and to have it include the whole of the vast, the growing, and the evidently uncontrollable expenditure under the Labour Department, in which the Employment Exchanges have now become the dole distributors and, having failed in the purpose for which they were created, now proceed to foster unemployment.
We should warn off that exceedingly expensive individual, the health specialist, who discovered that victorious England, which in its stride destroyed militarist Prussia, was a C3 nation. The gentleman who discovered that mare's nest at least should have no share in putting burdens upon the back of the ratepayer and the taxpayer. We should classify the re-
cipients of relief, we should codify the law and the Orders in Council dealing with the subjects named in my Amendment, we should correlate, co-ordinate, co-operate, we should know, in the Estimates laid before the House, the amounts spent through rates as well as through taxes under each head of account, there should be local registers to prevent overlapping, and this Drage Return should be fuller, better, more quickly and more often rendered. I thank the House extremely for its great kindness in listening so patiently to what I am afraid must necessarily have been rather a dull discourse. It is exceedingly difficult to deal with masses of figures, and I know that very few conjurors can make them altogether acceptable for more than a very short time. All I can say is that I have not ventured to address the House on this subject without having taken considerable pains to inform myself upon it, and that I have refrained from having said a provocative word, indeed, from having expressed any opinion at all, and I am sure that no hon. Member I am now looking at can say whether I am myself a Social Reformer, a Socialist, or not, from what I have said this afternoon.

Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment. The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) has performed a real service in bringing this matter before the House, and I congratulate him upon the imperturbable mask which he has been able to wear during his speech and so preclude us from any idea as to what his views are on the matters referred to in this Amendment. It is because he has maintained so strictly neutral an attitude on the subject, that I am able to support the request that he puts before the House, which I understand to be that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the expenditure which he has classed under the head of social services. I second this Amendment, not because I have any sympathy with the results that he hopes to obtain from such a Royal Commission, but because I believe that its appointment would lead to very useful results indeed. I think the effect of the War upon public expenditure in this country has been to produce a state of affairs which is distinctly confusing to all those who really want to understand
on what it is we are spending money, and how we are raising money to meet that expenditure, and I should hope that such a Commission as is desired by the hon. Member would, if granted, do a great deal to clear up the confusion of thought upon that point.
We are facing to-day an expenditure of an infinitely greater amount than that which existed before the War, and the hon. Member has drawn our attention to the fact that one class of that expenditure has increased, as he says—I do not propose to vouch for his figures in supporting his Motion—from £25,000,000 in 1890–91 to £332,000,000 in 1920–21. Whether those figures are accurate or not, there has, no doubt, been an enormous increase on services which he classes together as social services. I think a great deal of confusion of thought exists on this question of social services. The hon. Member has spoken of them as being a substitution of public help for private effort, and the suggestion is that in all these services there is a preponderating element of charity, that, out of public money, is being given in one form or another something which is akin to relief. I gather from his speech that he leaves nothing outside that category, and that his sum of £332,000,000 includes public education, old age pensions, all that is provided by the Ministry of Pensions including war pensions, the Ministry of Health, Insurance, and the Ministry of Labour. I think it is just on this point that this confusion of thought exists. I cannot agree with the suggestion in any shape or form that the large majority of this money is in any sort of way akin to public relief or public charity. What, as a matter of fact, takes place here is that the nation is making a collective provision for certain of its wants, instead of private provision.
Take education, for example. Before the Act of 1870, people in this country were dependent for education upon private enterprise. What is taking place to-day is that the people of this country are providing educational facilities for themselves. They are finding the money to pay for it, and I cannot, for the life of me, see how, in any sense of the word, the money that is spent on education in this country can be regarded as charity or relief, or how the people who are in receipt of the benefit of that education can be regarded as being in receipt of
public benefit. I should hope that a Royal Commission such as is desired by the hon. Member, and such as I would welcome myself, would clear up the confusion of thought on this question, and would bring to light not only the fact that there is this large sum of money being spent on these public services, but that this money is itself being found in the main by the very people who are receiving the benefits of the services. That is an aspect of the question, which, I do not think, was sufficiently brought out by the hon. Member in his speech, exhaustive as it was, and which I should hope would be brought out in bold relief by the Report of a Royal Commission, as is desired.
I am fortunate enough to have here the very Command Paper to which the hon. Member referred. In the table showing how the expenditure of 1921–2 compares with that of 1920–1, the amount shown as spent upon public education, old age pensions, Ministry of Pensions, Ministry of Health, Insurance, Ministry of Labour, civil demobilisation, etc., is £250,707,000. That figure falls somewhat short of the figure which the hon. Member placed before the House, but it is sufficiently large, I think, for his purpose.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: It is a different year.

Major BARNES: I agree. I have not seriously challenged the hon. Member's figures, but I should be surprised to find that they exceeded the figures to the extent that they appear upon the Paper. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the figure of Revenue, and, looking at the figure for Customs and Excise alone, as against the figure of £250,000,000 which is being spent on this kind of services, £333,000,000 was received. My point is it is clear that if we the engaging on very large expenditure in the items referred to, we are also receiving very large sums from the same class of people who are receiving the benefit of that expenditure, and that, I think, is something which it would be well for the people of this country to realise, particularly the people who talk as if the whole cost of these services were falling upon the well-to-do classes of the community. I do not say that the hon. Member suggested that in his speech, but that is the idea often expressed, that the
money spent on these services in the main comes out of the pocket soft he well-to-do.
I think a Royal Commission would probably make very valuable suggestions indeed with regard to methods of presenting national accounts, and would lead to classification of these accounts in such a way that really the large classes into which they fall would be clearly separated in the public mind. They are in the main three—debt service, the amount required for these social services, and the amount required for soldiers and policemen. If through the operations of such a body as is suggested here, or any other body, the people of this country could come to a clear conception of what it is they are spending their money on for these three great services, and if, at the same time, there could be brought into relationship with their expenditure the different ways in which revenue is being raised, I think a very real service would be achieved, that there would be a clarity and lucidity introduced in the presentation of accounts, which would enable us, whatever our opinions, to achieve what we all want to see, and that is, get the best value for the money that is spent.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I feel quite sure that very few of us on this side of the House will quarrel in any way with the manner in which this question was raised this afternoon, much as we may differ from some of the conclusions which appear to emerge from the speech of the hon. Baronet. There are, in the first place, one or two errors into which, I think, he fell in stating his case. First of all, he indicated that on this and kindred problems it is the attitude of Labour Members merely to encourage expenditure at large. Many of us on this side of the House have repeatedly urged that in the interests of the working classes of the country themselves, it is very important indeed that we should have a drastic reduction of expenditure and of taxation at the earliest possible moment, and we are under no delusion whatever — I wish to impress this upon the hon. Baronet—as to the benefits derived from a great deal of the kind of social expenditure to which he has called attention. In point of fact, there is not the least doubt that much of it partakes of the nature of mere relief, designed to tide over an emergency or a difficulty into
which sections of the people have fallen. We do not anticipate from it anything in the way of permanent benefit or constructive cure of the ills to which society is exposed at the present time. That is the first point I desire to make perfectly clear.
Then, in the second place, the hon. Baronet referred to this kind of expenditure on social services as Socialism. I do not want to embark this afternoon upon any economic discussion, but I think he will agree, on reflection, that Socialism means the reconstruction of our economic, or industrial, or commercial system in such a way as to lead to public ownership and control, as against the private ownership and control of the existing system.
5.0 P.M.
It is perfectly plain, if that be an accurate definition, that the expenditure on social services has no connection with a fundamental change in the economic system of this country, or any other country, and for that reason it seems to me to be quite wrong to describe this form of public effort as Socialism, at this stage or any other. Having made these two preliminary points, I want to ask one or two simple questions of the House in discussing the vast expenditure to which the hon. Baronet has called attention. On this side of the House we do not dispute in the least that there has been a great increase compared with pre-War times, but it is the duty of the House to keep two considerations very clearly in view. When the present century opened, we in Great Britain were only beginning a definite effort to deal with great social diseases; and by social diseases I mean the mass of ill-health and inefficiency among the people, traceable to a variety of causes, the lack of provision for old age, the importance of extending educational and other-facilities, and the rest. It became inevitable that this century would not have advanced very far before public funds were called upon for much larger sums under these headings if we were to discharge our duty in anything like a faithful and representative way. Not only have we to keep that consideration in mind, but the hon. Baronet, in his historical review, appeared to forget entirely that we have now succeeded to the legacy of a great deal of short-sightedness and mismanagement during the last
century. In its early phases, the industrial system of this country was allowed to grow up largely unregulated. There was a feeling that business people could do absolutely as they pleased, and that freedom was the essential condition if anything like economic progress was to be achieved. It was only towards the middle of the last century, and later, that we got even moderate interference with that state of affairs, through the Factory Acts and other legislation; and it was not until that century had closed and this century had opened that there was a definite effort, on anything like a large scale, to provide for the social needs and difficulties of the people. There had grown up a great mass of human disease; there had grown up also our hideous towns and cities; we had, in short, laid the foundations for great public expenditure if the difficulty was to be met, because, quite clearly, it had passed beyond the range of private enterprise or control.
These facts go a long way to explain the very great increase in the expenditure on social services, and they have been supplemented by the undeniable needs which have emerged from the War. Does any hon. Member, taking an impartial view of the situation, suggest that we could abandon our provision for a large number of people who have undeniably suffered on account of the War. Personally, I have frequently urged that the hugh expenditure on the relief of unemployment is, from many points of view, a hopeless national experiment. We admit that we are only meeting the immediate and urgent needs, if, indeed, it can be said that we are doing even that. For all the millions which have been expended on unemployment there is practically nothing to show at the present time, and I should be prepared to admit that from some points of view there has been even an aggravation of the disease. On this side we have suggested remedies, though hon. Members in other parts of the House have not agreed with us in those remedies. We have suggested a drastic reduction of the expenditure on armaments, amounting to hundreds of million pounds, since the War concluded. We have also argued for a better European economic policy, in order that markets should be opened and trade encouraged to revive, and the unemployed be taken from the streets. But
I am not aware that the hon. Baronet has very often supported us in the Division Lobby in these enterprises, and I think I am well within the mark in saying he has opposed practically every scheme which we on this side have brought forward, good, bad, or indifferent. Therefore, it does not altogether lie with him to deplore the vast expenditure which has been necessary on schemes of relief which, in our judgment, are traceable to a large extent to the weak and, as I regard it, mischevious policy in economic matters which this country and other countries have pursued since the Armistice.
Having indicated one or two considerations of that description, I will now come to the question which is really before the House. According to reliable statistics from eminent medical men and others, there has been a grave deterioration in the physique of millions of the British people. At the same time it is admitted by industrialists and others that, after making all allowances for other causes, declining output is traceable to a certain industrial inefficiency born of the social conditions under which millions of people are condemned to live. We recognise, also, that while millions are being expended on education, we are probably not getting the best results from that vast expenditure, and that a certain internal reorganisation of the system of education is urgently required. All these things are recognised on this side of the House, and underlying them all is the plain question, "What are we to do as a nation to secure a healthy and, above all, an efficient people?" That is the one problem which is behind all this so-called social legislation.
If I may make a deduction from the speech of the hon. Baronet, it would be to this effect—that we should fall back upon private initiative, that we should rely upon the individual or the family, and reduce all forms of public provision to the lowest possible point. May I make it perfectly plain on this head that it is not the business and, as I understand it, has never been any part of the business of the Labour movement in this country to set the State up as a great provider of charity. Nowhere has mere relief as such been more denounced than on our platforms. We have repeatedly asked that people should be put in such a posi-
tion, under a healthy industrial system, as would enable them to maintain their homes in comfort, become happy and efficient, and not have to have recourse to Poor Law and other forms of philanthropic relief. That has been our settled doctrine for many years, and I am at a loss to understand the hon. Baronet when he suggests that we are committed to a broad policy of assistance at large and of great expenditure of public money under these heads. We want to see a people efficient and independent in outlook and spirit. We want to see them with security and confidence in their homes and in their industry. It is no part of our business to send them to any agency for a recurrent relief, which can never bring any lasting or complete cure.
But when we have made these points perfectly plain, we must recognise that there are certain services which it is perfectly impossible in the present stage of development of the country to return to private initiative and enterprise. The old system of taking a few pence per week to the schoolmaster is very often held up as a kind of ideal to which we should try to get back, and the old Scottish system of the dominie has a kind of idyllic charm in every educational debate—it had a great deal to recommend it; but any system of that kind is absolutely inapplicable at the present day. The population has very largely increased. The importance of education to this country cannot be over-rated; above all, the importance of a sound system of education to the economic recovery which we are trying to promote, and without which other nations will inevitably beat us in the keen competition of the coming years. Education must be a matter of public enterprise; and I see no value in drawing attention to the outlay on education if the suggestion is that we are to go back to a private system. My cure would be to make the existing system much more efficient than it is, and if that be the form our economy takes, and it seems to me to be the only proper form, we will very soon realise that from our expenditure on education we shall at no distant date reap a return-of many millions of money, to put it on the material plane, and a far greater wealth in human life, which is more important.
The hon. Baronet drew attention also to the great expenditure on Poor Law
administration and relief. What party in the State has consistently advocated the break-up of the Poor Law? Has it not been part of our programme for many years to bring out this truth, that more and more as the circumstances of people in receipt of Poor Law relief are investigated, they are found to resolve themselves into conditions arising from age, or ill-health, or some form of disease which could be met through another agency, but which obviously will never be cured by Poor Law relief as such. We have advocated that the aged should be properly provided for either by some scheme of industrial insurance or superannuation, or, at all events, by an adequate system of old age pensions. We have suggested that there should be provision for those in ill health under the Ministry of Health or through the local authorities, and that it should be accompanied by drastic schemes in housing and other reforms until disease itself is eliminated. We are spending vast sums in every locality in the country to cure diseases which spring from conditions that we hardly touch; in fact, the expenditure of money in our own leading Scottish communities has led to the public health assessments bounding up year after year, particularly in one thing, the cure of phthisis or consumption. That type of disease is traceable, as every medical officer's report points out, to the housing conditions under which the people live. Personally, I see no hope for a real permanent reduction of expenditure on these social services until Great Britain gets down to the bedrock of the matter and tackles the housing problem, and until, above all, it endeavours to make industry a healthy proposition in this country.
Take the other point. We are spending the comparatively small sum of money, £130,000 annually, on the Medical Research Council, under which the Industrial Fatigue Research Board and other bodies are investigating industrial conditions bearing on health. The reports which have been already published make it perfectly clear that we are spending millions and millions of money trying to cure disease which comes from industrial conditions that could be quite easily adjusted and remedied at a comparatively small expenditure if we could get the co-operation of employers and the trade
unions—and I think I could pledge the trade unions on this point. But we are going to starve that part of investigation and to provide, through the local authorities and from the State, millions of money for the social services for treating ill-health while we fail, as I have said, to go to the root causes of the trouble. I suggest that as the discussion has been going on it is not going to lead us anywhere. I do not think even the Royal Commission which the hon. Baronet suggests would help, unless we were prepared to try and keep these things in mind. We have got simply to ask ourselves, in considering the social services in Great Britain, upon what form of expenditure are we going to get the maximum return. Will the mere cure of disease after it has grown up be of any real good to this country? Would it not be a thousand times better to get down to the bottom of the thing? I respectfully suggest if you do so that within 10 years a Motion of this kind would not be necessary in the House of Commons.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Our Debate to-day, I am glad to say, has proceeded in an atmosphere of philosophic calm. If that were to happen always in our discussions it would no doubt greatly contribute to their value. We have had, particularly, two speeches of exceptional persuasive force and exceptional interest. I refer to the Mover of the Amendment (Sir J. D. Rees), and the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham)—in the way that we are accustomed to listen to him They have advanced two different theories in respect of the relations of the State towards the individual. The hon. Baronet believes, I think, from the bottom of his heart that no State intervention in any of the affairs of life was ever of any good, or for the expenditure of any money for any purpose you got money's worth, whilst at the other extreme of the bow of the argument we have the hon. Gentleman opposite, who finds no hope for humanity except such as can be administered by the State—

Mr. GRAHAM: No, no!

Mr. YOUNG: Well, sometimes the picture may represent much more truly the attitude of mind than the
actual words of a speaker. I could not but receive from my hon. Friend's description of his views an impression of that nature. He is far too sceptical of the good that can be done by the enterprise of the individual. What I say-about it is this: from this box it is not necessary for me, surely, to commit myself to either philosophic extreme, as in the practical affairs of life it is hard not to see that there is useful sphere for the action of the State and a useful sphere also for the action by the individual. It would be idle to profess, much less to believe, that the amount which we spend upon the social services at the present time is necessarily an ideal and perfect amount to spend, neither too much or too little; it would be quite idle to profess that the manner in which it is spent is ideal at present or that not a penny of the money could be better spent. It is not necessary to maintain that. This is an imperfect world and one struggles towards perfection, arriving at it by slow stages. It will be apparent to anybody who reflects upon the manner in which this expenditure has grown that it has grown more or less from year to year in relation to the steady growth and change in public opinion. I would certainly draw the attention of the House to this fact that in any case what is being spent now is being spent as a result of the decisions on policy taken by this House, that nobody is responsible for it except this House itself. It has guided the nations towards such standard of expenditure on social services as we have at present.
It is, of course, recognised that expenditure on these services at the present time has grown enormously in comparison with the past. I would not say for a moment that it does not suggest the most serious reflection as to whether the expenditure might have grown too high considering the financial state of the nation at present, nor is it necessary to maintain that what is now being spent on these social services is not so great as to cause the most urgent anxiety for a searching inquiry into the origin and direction in which the money is being spent—at the call of absolute necessity or of common prudence. Let that be said. At the same time let not the House be terrified by the excessive
differentiation between the two figures produced by the right hon. Baronet, produced from that useful return which he has obtained, the Drage Return. He quotes from it in 1920 the figure of £257,000,000. Against that figure he gets that of 1891, which is only £25,000,000, so that the amount spent on the social services has increased tenfold. It is, of course, impossible to arrive at any true judgment or explanation unless one remembers to survey the circumstances. I know the House is apt to be somewhat impatient at the whittling away of the startling effect of the figures; still, how can we arrive at any principle of comparison between 1891 and the present day in those matters unless one remembers, first of all, the increase in prices and the increase in wages which have made it, roughly, twice as costly to carry out the social services, and which has made £2 now the equivalent of £1 in 1891. How is anyone to arrive at a proper judgment, how is it possible to arrive at a true judgment, without remembering the increase in the population since that time? The population of the country in 1891 was 38,000,000. At present it is 47,000,000. The maintenance of the services has increased with the increased population.
The truth of the matter, as between this time and that, of course, is that between the two dates, as to which the startling comparison is produced, some of the greatest and the most expensive of our services have been undertaken. What is also true is that neither the hon. Baronet or any Member of this House confronted with those services would suggest for a moment that we should discontinue them! What are the biggest figures in this growth. First of all, there are the war pensions and war training £110,000,000. I will not insult the intelligence of the hon. Baronet by even asking him the rhetorical question as to whether he desires to reduce provision for war pensions? Old age pensions, nothing in 1891; £29,000,000 to-day. Is any hon. Member proposing to economise by discontinuing old age pensions? The question is an idle one. On the contrary, a case is being made to-day as to whether or not another £15,000,000 should be spent on old age pensions. In this startling comparison of figures between
the two dates there is such a figure as this. Health Insurance, £27,000,000. Is it suggested that we should wipe out the whole of the national scheme of health insurance? No such suggestion has been made. Let it be remarked in that figure of £27,000,000 of health insurance the money comes from contributions and no comparison can possibly be fair unless it takes into consideration that included in the main amount spent now you have very large sums by way of contributions—

Sir J. D. REES: My point is that I did deduct the contributions.

Mr. YOUNG: I have no doubt hon. Members listened with great care and attention to the hon. Baronet, and are likely to consider the Drage Return in reckoning the figures. It is necessary to bear that consideration in mind. It would be quite unfair to the recipients, to the millions who receive these benefits, to suggest that it is all in the nature of a charitable dole, if there is anything in the nature of a charity in the payments by the State of these services. I will now deal with unemployment, housing, and education. Take unemployment. Is this a time to suggest a long step backward in State provision for unemployment? In normal times I can imagine the argument being raised with great force for and against any provision for unemployment by the State, but once the system has been adopted, I cannot imagine anyone suggesting its abolition now, in view of the state of the trade of the country, and when the country is reeling under the blows of a great war. The other increases mostly relate to hospitals, medical treatment, maternity benefits, housing, and lunacy. One is not accustomed to hear in this House or from the hon. Baronet (Sir J. D. Rees) arguments, at any rate, supported by votes, against any of those proposals.
Let me pass from that consideration of actual comparison of the figures to another aspect of this question which has presented itself to me in the course of the Debate. As one engaged from day to day in the pursuit of the elusive prey of economy, I have made, at any rate, one discovery, that it avails little to sit in horror and astonishment before globular
totals and compare them with other globular totals and say, "With regard to these disastrous increases, something must be done." I suggest to the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment that whatever warrant there may be for disquiet in these comparisons, the region in which they should look for a remedy for any undue expenditure which there may be in such directions is not to be found in new inquiries or new tinkering commissions, but in practical economy on the Estimates with which we have been very much concerned lately, and with which I think the House will continue to be concerned for the ensuing weeks. It is there that we have to see whether we are putting an effective check upon the progress of expenditure upon our social services, and to find any expenditure that may be unwarranted or unnecessary. I will not now give any large or detailed narrative of the reduction effected in the Estimates this year, tout I claim that much has been done in the direction of checking expenditure and of reducing such expenditure as is unwarranted, in view of the grave situation of the country's finances.
Let me mention a few of the more effective instances this year. There is a reduction in the Education Vote of £6,000,000, a reduction not universally acclaimed in this House. There has been a corresponding reduction on account of the Scottish Education Department of £890,000. In regard to administrative matters there has been a reduction in the Ministry of Health Estimates of £1,700,000. Economy has been effected in National Health Insurance to the amount of £500,000. The Scottish Board of Health Estimates have been reduced by £1,600,000, and the Ministry of Labour by £7,600,000. Finally war pensions, not as the result of any reduction of the pensions, not as a result of any less generous appreciation of the services of those who receive pensions, but as a result of a closer estimate and administrative economies there has been a reduction of £21,000,000. That is an example of what can be done in the direction of the checking of expenditure, and that is the true remedy.
Let me look for a moment to the alternative remedies proposed by the Amendment before the House. May I preface my remarks with the observation that the word which appeals to me most strongly
in the Amendment is the word "co-ordination." It is constantly to be remembered that in the region of public services where there are such widespread, intricate services as those which are now being administered by modern States there is a constant danger of the lack of co-ordination on the part of the various Departments, and a constant necessity for keeping the means of co-ordination of the most efficient sort possible. Co-ordination is necessary in two regions. First of all, in the region of planning, and, secondly, in the region of executing. In the first region it is comparatively easy to co-ordinate your plans, but the coordination of the execution of the plans and the actual administration after the plan has been made is a much more difficult matter, and needs constant application, constant watching, and great care on the part of those responsible for the Government. I would say that for the purposes of such co-ordination special organisations and officials and deliberate plans are ineffective, and true coordination can only be obtained if it is a habit of mind and a practical part of the living organism of the public service. That has been the direction in which development has taken place very largely even within the short period of my own observation, and that I believe to be a wholesome direction in which the organisation of co-ordination should be directed.
At the present time the central instrument for co-ordination must be the Cabinet, and to adapt that instrument to meet the change and development and increasing work of the Government there has been the great development of the work of the Cabinet Committees. Nothing whatever but co-ordination is their special function. Constantly in the progress of this work there are and must be special inquiries and special Departmental Committees sitting to keep in touch with this section of the work. It is by this process alone that co-ordination can achieve efficiency in Government Departments by cultivating the habit of communication and cross references in the mind of the administrators, and encouraging them to frequently institute special joint bodies which are necessary for the work of co-ordination.
What is the alternative suggestion? First of all, a Royal Commission is sug-
gested. I cannot believe that there is any subject matter whatever for inquiry in the Debate which has taken place today which is suitable for a Royal Commission. All the matters we have been discussing, the bearings of which are well known, are matters upon which much information is available as a result of previous inquiries and Royal Commissions. The only Royal Commission that could usefully inquire further into the subjects we have been discussing would be that one consisting of all the Members of this House which sits from day to day actually here on these benches.
The other alternative is that of the establishment of a Board. The Board proposed in this Resolution appears to me to be a very unsatisfactory one. Is it to be a concentration of the Ministry of Health, the Board of Education and the Ministry of Labour and half a dozen other Government Departments, a sort of super-Department over the administration with executive powers? If that is so, I believe that the experience of anyone who has come in touch with our public administration will be that there could be no instrument more calculated to produce paralysis and inefficiency in all our public services than a body such as that. They are separate in nature, and surely, in carrying out their administration they should be separate also.
As I understand it, the Board is proposed as a means of rationing all our expenditure. There again I fail to understand what the work of such a Board is to be. Is it to make itself responsible to us? Is it to say how much every Department is to spend? Is it to be a Ministerial Commission? If it is, it will most probably share the same fate as other similar proposals, and have no useful existence. Such an institution is irreconcilable with any theory of Ministerial responsibility to this House and Ministerial authority over each Department, and it cannot possibly work satisfactorily. For the provision of money for a Department one authority, and one authority alone, in the long run must be responsible, and that is this House. The answer we have to give to such a proposal as this is that the rationing is done at the present time by this House in the Estimates, and if any further rationing is desired, it must also be done by this House in Committee on the Estimates.
It is for these reasons that the actual wording of the Amendment does not appear to provide any very useful solution of this problem.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman deal with my suggestions for making the Drage Return more complete and issue it more frequently?

Mr. YOUNG: I shall be very happy to consult my hon. Friend who takes so much interest in this matter as to any method by which it is possible to improve the Drage Return. I have always looked upon it as imperfect. We want to get a more scientific and full return. Let my last word be this. There has been a very great increase in our expenditure, and that increase must needs be, in the present state of our finances, a cause of disquiet requiring attention in order to see that no funds are spent unnecessarily and that no money is wasted. The true direction in which to look for economy is by work on the Estimates—work which is already reflected in the Estimates now before the House.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The closing words of the Financial Secretary will, I hope, find an echo in the breast of the Leader of the House and those who cooperate with him in so arranging the time still left this Session that we may really achieve the object of the Amendment and meet the desires of almost every Member in the House. How much time are we going to get in this Session for that work? Twenty days is perfectly ludicrous. If any real work is going, to be done, what I hope lies behind what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said is that we must have at least 30 days. If we can get that, and if hon. Members are in earnest, I have no doubt that very great public service can be rendered with regard to checking the Estimates, in the co-ordination of Departments, and in teaching a lesson which they have yet to learn in habits of economy to the Cabinet itself. The true co-ordinating authority in all these things is, after all, the Treasury. Unless we can re-establish full, complete and strenuous Treasury control, so long will unjustifiable expenditure proceed. There are two words in the Amendment now before the House which suggest topics
with which I will deal very briefly indeed, before the House goes to the Main Question. The Amendment brings in words of which we hear very little in this House, far too little, and that is "the ratepayer." It talks about the taxpayers and ratepayers and what they can afford. Let me remind the House what the unhappy ratepayer, who is, of course, also, in 90 cases out of 100, the unfortunate taxpayer, has to bear as his share of the burden. In 1914 the total sum raised by the rates in this country was £71,276,000. In 1921 we raised no less than £149,000,000, and that was raised on an assessment which was only very slightly increased from that of 1914. The assessment on which it was raised in 1914 amounted to £211,500,000, and that assessment last year had only been increased to £223,656,000. Therefore, the capacity to pay was not by any means increased in proportion to the burden which the ratepayer had to pay. My hon. Friend said a little while ago that a large amount of the additional cost was owing to the inflation of high prices, and that we had to get the same services rendered for the same return, while those who rendered the services had to be paid a very large increase in their salaries. That is true, but, after all, what about the test of the capacity to pay on the part of the ratepayer? His capacity to-pay is certainly no greater; it has emphatically gone down. The average of the rates in the £—I am speaking for England and Wales, but I am sure the same position obtains in Scotland, if not in a more, acute form—in 1914 the average rate in England and Wales was 6s. 8¾d. In 1921 it was 13s. 3½d. In very many instances the rate amounted to 20s. and even 25s. in the £, but I am speaking only of the average, and the average increase ranges from 98 per cent. to 100 per cent. These are very startling figures.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman unnecessarily, but how can the question of the ratepayers' position be in order on an Amendment which has to deal with Civil Service Estimates?

Sir D. MACLEAN: With all respect I think I can show that it is in order. The Amendment asks for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire or a Board
to take over the rationing of all such expenditure in view to its proper coordination and reduction of expenditure within such limit as the taxpayers and ratepayers can afford. Still I am not pursuing this point any further. I was simply bringing it in as an illustration of the heavy burden which the ratepayers have to bear and claiming that, consequently, consideration should be given to them in that respect. I was going to suggest for the ratepayers a remedy similar to that which my hon. and gallant Friend foreshadowed, I mean co-ordination. He is at present burdened with a vast amount of detail and a very large number of different authorities. I think that very briefly comes within the scope of this suggestion for co-ordination.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would like to point out that this might develop into a Debate as to the burden on the rates in different areas, and that would be completely out of order.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I was not going further than that. I was simply pointing out the great need for co-ordination in so far as the ratepayer is concerned. There are at the present time seven different public authorities intervening in any service which requires public assistance. I think it might be just as well to state a very few heads from the report I hold in my hand—the Local Government Committee's Report on the Transfer of Functions to Authorities in England and Wales. For dealing with infants and maternity there are no less than five different public authorities; for children of school age there are three. For persons of unsound mind and mentally defective there are no fewer than six. For sick persons there are four. For aged persons there are five, and for able-bodied persons there are also five. Not only is organisation but the spirit of co-ordination is required, and very great savings, undoubtedly, could be effected. I hope that the result of the reiterated requests that have been made to the Government in their schemes for economy, both with regard to the taxpayer and to the ratepayer, and in this respect to the ratepayer in particular, they will see what economies can be effected, not only by restraining and jealously guarding against any further additions being put on the rates, but also by seeing what steps can be taken as soon as possible to co-ordinate
these numerous authorities and the burdens they are imposing.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think it would be very valuable if some investigation were made into the astonishing figures which have been laid before the House. The Financial Secretary said it was just a question of criticising and dealing with each Estimate in detail. I submit it is something deeper than that. The Geddes Committee was for the first body to educate the person commonly known as the man in the street—the man who really bears the burden of expenditure—as to what the nation spends, and it did more in that direction than all the Debates and Budgets that had gone before. I think another body of a somewhat similar nature to inquire into this expenditure would be very valuable in teaching the ratepayers and the taxpayers where the money is going, and enabling them to come to a conclusion as to whether the services given are worth the expenditure. It is very easy to persuade this House and to persuade particular individuals and particular classes of individuals that expenditure is desirable, but it is a very difficult thing when you come to investigate to see whether real value for the money is being given. The Financial Secretary suggested that nobody would think of repealing the National Health Insurance Act. I can assure him that if this Government wants to be popular it could do nothing more likely to meet the views of the ordinary man in the street—who is the taxpayer—than to repeal that Act. It was conceived more or less as a stunt. It has done very little good to anybody except to enable the Sixpenny Doctor to keep an American motor car. His West End confreres have used the National Health Insurance contributions as a sort of beginning for a more aristocratic practice with, in many cases, I may add, very perfunctory medical attention for the panel patient. If you were to have the same principle applied to the profession to which I have the honour to belong, if you were to say to the public that they shall pay so much per week and hand the money over to a panel solicitor or barrister for the purpose of getting advice, I should be very sorry for the legal advice obtained under such circumstances. It would be the same kind of advice, I should imagine, as the medical
advice which is given by the panel doctor.
6.0 P.M.
You cannot work a profession in that way. It is merely a tax placed upon unfortunate people for the support of a profession. No doubt many doctors—in fact, I believe, the majority—have still got about them the traces of the old code, the old professional standard, and I believe that will last for many years. There is no doubt that the general effect has been to provide men who could not get practices in the ordinary competition in the medical profession with a very satisfactory living, but no sane person who could really afford it would ever dream of calling in, when seriously ill, his panel doctor, and the Act is carried on by inflicting a tax upon very poor people who get no benefit from it at all. For instance, the whole of the mariners of England get nothing out of it. They are all at sea, and are treated at the expense of the shipowners, and yet they are taxed for this purpose. The very nurses, again, who get all their medical attention free, have been brought in to pay a tax for the benefit of other people. It is all a monstrous imposition. It is very popular with these medical gentlemen, the huge parasitic staff of officials, and the immense body of clerical workers employed because of the Act, who may be supposed to be making a bit out of it, but most of the the unfortunate victims for whose benefit it is supposed to be conceived would be very glad to be relieved of it.
Then enormous savings might undoubtedly be made on what is miscalled education in this country. It is not education at all to a large extent. The expense has been enormously increased by the Act which was passed two days before the Germans broke through in 1918—I think it was on the 19th March—when the whole country was convulsed and the House was empty, and-the education authorities took the opportunity to make this enormous raid upon the pockets of the taxpayer and the ratepaper. Scotland has been devastated by the Education Act. There is not an agricultural estate in Scotland that is not bankrupt as the result of the Education Act. There is not a farmer who is not crying out under the agony of the burden which it has placed upon him. You find, in poor counties like Banffshire,
indignant letters from people saying that they have seen a schoolmaster in full bodily vigour at 65 years of age, with all his faculties about him, retiring with what is called a lump sum of £1,000 in his pocket paid by people who are far poorer than himself, and a retiring allowance of £300 or £400 a year. How long do you think people will stand that sort of thing? It cannot go on indefinitely. We had a Reformation once in Scotland, which was due to the fact that the priesthood absorbed one-third of the national wealth. Their place has now been taken by the education authorities. They are the new priesthood, who are eating up a very large part of the national earnings. It cannot be tolerated for very long, and there will be an uprising against it.
I admit that the people who run these educational matters have the greatest propaganda in the world. The North-cliffe Press is nothing compared to it. When the Act was going through, they filled the newspapers with great pæans of praise as to the new Heaven and the new earth that was going to be brought about by keeping boys at school till the age of 18. Even recently, when the Geddes Report came out, they got up and created such a shout that they intimidated the Government, They went about through the constituencies shouting about the children being kept out of school till they were six. There has never been anything quite like it. I remember what was said by one of the Members on the Labour Benches the other day, with that curious desire which seems to obsess them to give a personal autobiography of their own early careers. They are so surprised at finding themselves here that they want to give a sort of Samuel Smiles' self-help account of how they rose in the world, as if that was a most amazing performance. This hon. Member said that, had he not obtained some scholarship at the university he might have had to go down a coalpit. What harm would it have done him if he had gone down a coalpit? I can assure him—and I know the miners well—that he would probably have found himself in just as good, if not better, company than that in which he is in the habit of sitting, and possibly he would not have taken the same views that he did at the time of the national extremity, or, at any rate, knowing what I do of miners, I should be very much surprised if he would have been allowed by them to do
so. I was also surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) also descending to the same level, and proceeding to give his personal reminiscences. He, too, told us that, without the scholarships and other things that he got, he could not have followed his professional career, and probably would not have been in this House. Taking those two statements together, I think they are the strongest argument I have ever heard for the total abolition of all bursaries.
It is a tragic thing, this superstition that there is in regard to education. I am told by education authorities that one of the evils that they find in connection with the bursary system is that they get the poorest type of boy—the boy who wishes to go in for the so-called higher education. The boy with a naturally vigorous, independent intellect knows perfectly well that the education of the battle of life is the only real education he can ever hope to acquire. He knows that he will learn very little from schoolmasters, and he desires to get out and earn his living at the earliest possible moment, because he knows that the greatest of all possessions that a man can have is the faculty and power to make his way and earn his bread. But the boy who wants to be a hanger-on, who wants to get a salary and a safe job, goes in, of course, for the higher education. The vigorous men who are going to do the real work of this world start life early and—[An HON.MEMBER: "Become lawyers."] No, lawyers are like those in other learned professions; they have to get up a certain amount of information which they repeat like a parrot on a piece of paper; otherwise they are not qualified. I believe that in the State of Wisconsin, in the United States of America, you can become a lawyer if you can get two respectable neighbours to certify that you are a man of good character. That is the only qualification, and they say that there are not too many lawyers there, because there is some difficulty in getting the necessary qualification.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot see how the hon. Member is going to connect the, subject of legal education with the Civil Service Estimates.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was drawn into my answer by the interruption. It is most
disastrous that there should be this enormous expenditure. This education was, of course, promoted by specialists, but let us beware of specialists, even in national health and in education, because, when the Minister of Education introduced the last Education Act, I heard him state in this House that he had not calculated out what the cost of it was going to be. Imagine the possibility of a man who could make a confession of that kind being put in charge of the training of the rising generation. The highest point that you can reach in anyone's education is to teach him to count the cost and calculate what a thing is going to cost before carrying it out. I should have some hesitation in putting a man who would make a confession of that kind in charge of even a small hen farm, because I do not think he would count the hens or the eggs correctly. If you have a specialist in charge of a particular Department he never counts expense, because, just as the clergy are said to think that Sunday is the only day in the week that matters, that being the day on which they preach, so the schoolmaster thinks that the fact that he takes hold of little boys and, in a somewhat stuffy atmosphere, dulls their intellects over a series of years, is the most important event that can happen in their lives. The vigorous boys do not allow that to happen to them. Everyone knows that the main business, the main industries, in this and all other countries, are carried on by men who are much more indebted to their natural capacity than to any training or teaching they ever got. Mrs. Humphrey Ward once said that it took five years for a young man to recover from the effects of an Oxford career, and there is a great deal of truth in that.
I would urge that the extraordinary stupidity of the system of education pursued in this country is to be found in its compulsory character. Take away compulsion, and you will halve your education expenses at once. [An HON. MEMBER: "And double your ignorance!"] No, Sir; there are some people whose ignorance could not be doubled. Ninety-five per cent. of mankind express themselves by the work of their hands, and not in words or literary form at all. There is a vast amount of work to be done in this world which must be done by manual skill and handicraft, and people want to get to that at the earliest possible moment. The
Chinese, who are perhaps the most educated people in the world, are an example of that. They begin with the particular and go on to the general; we begin with the general and end with the particular. The small Chinese boy begins to learn his handicraft at four years of age, and by the time he is 12 he is a fine craftsman. Then he goes to school, but he is an independent man when he goes there, and is able to earn his own living. Do no let us think that our system of literary education is the best. That is just as stupid as it would be to send every one to compulsory singing lessons. What sense would you consider there to be in sending people to compulsory singing lessons who could not tell one note from another and had a voice like that of a croaking raven? That is what is done, and that is where the money is wasted, because you have a huge teachers' union in this country, with a terrific propaganda and with its advocates in this House and in every other public body. You have appointed education authorities up and down the country, but there is no real control; they are only controlled by the central bureaucracy with the view of keeping them sweet. Money is wasted in paying for their travelling expenses and time, and there are all the evils that crept in when payment of Members of Parliament was instituted. Then you have educational directors at £1,000 a year, who run up and down the country seeing that the schoolmasters are doing their jobs. That is sheer waste of money, and it is inflicted on an impoverished country, where people are struggling and where there are 2,000,000 unemployed. How do you think they can tolerate looking on and realising that their want of work, and the high price of everything they have to buy, is increased by the rate sand taxes? How do youth think people with their wages diminished can stand this particular privileged class, this priesthood? Just as we used to be shocked by the Huns in Belgium fighting behind the bodies of women and children, so the Teachers' Union have used the little children and fought behind them ill the Press and elsewhere for the purpose of protecting the large increases in educational expenditure, without much result, which they have obtained through their enormous and costly propaganda. It may be necessary, it may have gone so
far—I believe it has—that we should give gratuitously the keys of book knowledge into the hand of every child. The keys of book knowledge are reading, writing, and arithmetic. Take the compulsory continuation classes which are put upon the older boys in London. So far they merely go back to elementary education. The same things they learned when they were little boys they are being taught in the continuation classes. But they call elementary arithmetic applied mathematics. That is a fine sounding name. A close investigation of the system is simply appalling. Knowledge of the bookish type is, after all, a comparatively limited form of knowledge. The education of the so-called better classes, who are really the better-off classes, does not consist in books. It consists in the development of character. Character is the principal asset. What training for character can there be in State-aided education? You begin with the fact that it is eleemosynary. You begin with the fact that the children learn early in their career that this is something they are supposed to be getting for nothing. That is the worst possible training you can give to any child, and it will take ten years of real hard struggle with the adversity of life before they will unlearn that lesson. But it has been brought into being. We cannot turn back the clock if we wish to, but we can do a good deal to modify the evils of the present Education Act, and just as it got through this House in the middle of a crisis—it might have been passed when the Germans were landing at Dover—the whole thing should be overhauled and reconsidered in the light of the present crisis in our affairs.
I come to another body of expenditure. It is an extraordinary thing, but once the Government takes control of anything it becomes bad. All legislation is bad. It may be necessary as the lesser of two evils, but it is bad because it means third parties interfering with other people's business. That is the difference between legislation and custom. Custom is like a man's skin. It fits because he grows with it. Education is like a man's clothes. It depends on his tailor. All Government enterprise necessarily tends to corrupt. Look at the Public Trustee's Office. What a pæan of trumpets it started with, and now it is a hotbed of waste and expense. You have the Labour Bureaus. They were started, wholly unnecessarily, by the present
Colonial Secretary and largely served the purpose of providing chairmen of Liberal associations with soft billets at the country's expense. They have grown into a perfect scandal. No responsible employer wants them. No responsible working man would go to them for a job, because he knows that the other fellow would have gone to the works and got the job while an official was filling up the form to send in. Business is not done in that way through employment bureaus, but do you think the employment bureaus are abolished? No fear. They seize on the unemployment dole at once. It was a splendid job for them. It was consanguineous to them. You cannot get them abolished. If the unemployment dole had been handed over to the trade unions they would have made a thorough job of it, and, I believe, made a profit out of it. I do not mean that they would have done anything wrong, but they would have made a so much more thorough job if it that they would have saved a good deal of money. Instead of doing that, they keep these wretched bodies called Labour Bureaus alive, and this House is helpless. There is evidently no way in which you can get rid of them.
I hope some thorough system of overhauling national expenditure, such as is suggested, will be gone into, because we are passing though a most extraordinary crisis. We had arrived, prior to the War, at an accumulation of wealth which really almost began in Elizabethan times. We suffered the loss of a lot of it in the Napoleonic Wars. If you look at the Annual Register for 1822, you will see exactly the same phenomenon repeating itself as we have now. You will find there accounts of enormous numbers of bureaucracies which had grown up. I was told by one man in the accounting department of one of the Government offices, that the moment the Armistice was signed all the capable men who knew they could make business for themselves took the wings of the morning and fled from Government employment and started afresh. No man of independent character wishes to be a Government official. He wants to stand on his own feet and to be a free man. He wants to be able to think of himself. He does not want to be filling up forms, with a senior officer, who is not as capable as himself, turning down his ideas or appro-
priating them himself. There were left behind in the Government service all the duds, all the men who, for the first time, got what was to them a really satisfactory living. They are still there—vast numbers of them. A vast deal of social reform simply means looking for billets and appointing more officials to rest their heavy feet on other people's necks.
There are too few producers in this country and too many officials, and social reform means very largely an increase of officials and nothing else. Investigation into that, such as is proposed, would do an immense amount of good—investigation into public bodies, the teaching profession, what the retiring allowances are, why they retire in possession of full bodily health at 65. The other day I brought four old schoolmasters to the House of about 77 years of age, the last stragglers from the Waterloo of the grand old Scotch system, men who were engaged in the old Scottish school service before the compulsory Act of 1872. They were refused a lump sum because they had gone on for another 12 years after they were 65 years of age, and saved the taxpayer, and in the eyes of the bureaucracy it was an unpardonable sin to work for 12 years when they ought to have been learning to play golf. That is the wasteful spirit of bureaucracy, and the nation is to be bled to death. It cannot go on. There ought to be a complete overhaul of the expenditure of all these services. I am pleased to see that the pension service has had such a complete overhaul without in the least diminishing in any sense the awards which are given. All the other services should be equally overhauled, and the facts should be stated and set out in such a way that the man in the street can read them, and I believe there are many millions which could be taken off the shoulders of an overburdened people.

Dr. MURRAY: I had no intention of taking part in the Debate, but there are one or two remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member, in his most interesting, philosophical and entertaining speech, which I cannot pass without a word of protest. I do not take him at his face value. He makes English people believe that he is a terrible fellow on education, and that in his view the whole country should be supplied with public-houses and all the schools should be closed. Any hon. Member who goes across the
border, and goes to church in Edinburgh on Sunday morning, will find my hon. Friend a respectable deacon passing the plate round.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I correct my hon. Friend? He is apparently not familiar with the church in Scotland. There are no deacons.

Dr. MURRAY: Then my hon. Friend would have a higher post in the Scottish Church. He is not such a terrible fellow as he would make us believe. I admit that, because of the fact that he was never at school himself, he cannot understand how any person can derive any benefit from it, but he has tried to make up for that. He taunted some hon. Members near me with giving their autobiography when they speak. Perhaps there is no harm in my giving a little of my hon. Friend's biography. He has never been to school, but he is making up for it by sending his children to school. I am very glad that the loss which he himself sustained he is not going to have repeated in the case of his children. My hon. Friend's idea of a proper schooling is to send his sons to a school where they wear morning coats and tile hats. That is not my idea. I do not see any great value in teaching a boy to wear a tile hat and a morning coat. I am very glad to see that my hon. Friend's bark is worse than his bite with regard to education. With regard to his remarks about Scottish education, I do not say he has not a case, especially on the administrative aspect, and it is quite possible that in certain aspects some money could be saved. But any reduction of the expense of education which would arrest the progressive development of education in Scotland would be a disaster for that country. I am not going to speak for his constituency in Glasgow. The motto of Glasgow is
Let Glasgow flourish by the preaching of the Word.
He did not throw any doubt upon that to-day. But with regard to the rural parts of Scotland, there are no industries. There is nothing else for the boys and girls to do except to get into something through the school.
The only man whom I ever heard give expression to a sentiment of the sort that has been voiced by my hon. Friend as to these boys in the Highlands going to school was a Church of England tutor
who had come there to teach a different form of religion. He could not understand the crofters' and fishermen's sons learning Greek verbs in school. I remember him saying that he rejoiced to see the boys standing on their heads in order that the Greek and Latin verbs might fall out of them. That is the sort of thing that you might expect from an English curate educated in a very narrow school who thought that the squire's son and the parson's son should be educated, but these are the sentiments of my hon. Friend, with whom I spent four or five happy years at the same university. I taught my hon. Friend something there. Even at the higher schools you learn something, and I expect, as the fruits of what I did teach him in those days, to see him yet come over to this side of the House. One of the splendid effects of education in Scotland for the last half century has been that at almost every General Election there has been a big majority of Liberals returned to this House. Perhaps that is what made my hon. Friend so angry with education in Scotland. But with regard to the rural parts of Scotland and the Highlands and islands, education is the only hope. There is nothing else for the boys and girls to look forward to. There is nothing else for them to do at home. I do not look down on fishermen or on crofters. I think that crofting is an ideal occupation, but they cannot all engage in it. The more vigorous of them go into schools, get bursaries, go to the secondary school, and enter the university. I should not be surprised if the son of one of these crofters or fishermen attends my hon. Friend when he is ill now and then.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am never ill.

Dr. MURRAY: Anything that will cripple education in these places would be a big disaster not only for the Highlands, but for the country at large.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have no desire to cripple education, but there is the question of training.

Dr. MURRAY: The schools are for training the mind to enable the boy or girl to learn for himself when he leaves school. I agree with my hon. Friend as to the value of education in training the mind.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And character.

Dr. MURRAY: Yes. It is not simply the planting of knowledge in the child just as you would put pins into a pin cushion, and leave them there. I have forgotten all that I learned at school, but I am not going to say that on that account the school did not do me any good, for it trained my mind such as it is. The training of the mind, and the moral and spiritual character is the real education, and the schools in Scotland at the present time in that respect are doing splendid work. I agree with my hon. Friend that the old schoolmaster has to be revered. He laid the foundations of the educational system which we have in Scotland at the present time. He was the pioneer, and, of course, all pioneers are poorly paid. But I do not agree with my hon. Friend in the whole-sole condemnation of the present system of Scottish education. I think that the schools in Scotland, and in the Highlands especially, are doing splendid work, and the teachers there, living under social conditions that would not occur to my hon. Friend, are doing this fine work bravely, and I shall never see them attacked in this way without endeavouring to say a word on their behalf.

Sir J. D. REES: After the sympathetic speech of the Financial Secretary, and the promises which he made, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I desire to say a few words concerning the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees). We are indebted to him for having presented us with at least one significant admission, which I hope he will not be allowed to forget outside the walls of this House. He began his speech by saying that he had a very rooted objection to what is now called social reform, but that social reform was a term given by those who happen to support that particular kind of governmental and municipal activity. It was called Socialism by those who happened to dislike it, and Bolshevism by those who happened to detest it. So I take it, from that rather, shall I say, simple explanation, that after all what goes by the term of Bolshevism in this particular House is nothing more or less innocuous than a mild form of social reform. We are indebted, indeed, to the
hon. Baronet for that kind explanation. I gather from him meanwhile that he is very disturbed in his mind by the fact that this movement towards social reform is becoming somewhat world wide. I believe that in that matter he is probably right. Speaking for myself, and, I think, my friends on this side, we have no reason to express any particular regret for that kind of movement. Indeed, when we look to the Antipodes we see that the party there, which is a counterpart to our particular party, has been responsible for introducing some of the most beneficial forms of social reform in any part of the world, and we on our side are hoping to see something of that kind happen in our own country.
I was much impressed by the catalogue of woes which the hon. Baronet produced for the edification of the House. Among those which he outlined for us was the provision for what is called education. In this I think he had the whole-hearted sympathy of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten). The hon. Member made some curious animadversions upon the subject of what is now called education. He was good enough to say it was miscalled education. He referred to the brief remarks that I made in this House last week as to the particular difficulty in school nowadays, owing to which it is hardly possible to do much more than merely address your pupils. You certainly have very little opportunity to educate them in the true sense of the term, for, after all, the meaning of the word education, as I understand it from its Latin derivative, is that you have to try to lead out of the child, to elicit from the child as much as you possibly can rather than merely put into the child little tit-bits of information. I gather from the hon. Member that Scotland has been devastated by this kind of education, and I am bound to say that the result of the devastation seems to be fairly obvious on the opposite side. Anyhow, I can only hope that it is not as general as the hon. Member would lead us to suppose.
He was good enough to make reference, in a bantering way I presume, to what I said last week concerning my own unfortunate autobiography. I merely used the illustration last week to show what a scholarship scheme could do for poor people, who are as much entitled to the
full benefit of education as the hon. Member opposite or his children. Incidentally I might present the hon. Member with another detail of my autobiography. I have worked in a coal mine, and I learned so much down there that I shall do as much as I possibly can to prevent other people having to go down there again. Incidentally the hon. Member himself seems to have used education to dodge it fairly completely. I gather from him that he is rather keen upon the training of character. In that I am at one with him, and, if I may say so very earnestly, I think he has done the National Teachers' Union, of which I happen to have the privilege of being a member, a very grave injustice, and incidentally he has cast a most unjust slur upon the members of that profession. They are as earnest people, and as good citizens as either the hon. Member or any of his associates on the other side. They have as great a regard for the work which they have to do, and for the training which they are expected to give the children, and they are entitled to have their activities held up to the country and to the world in a much more generous light than has been shown by the hon. Member this afternoon. It is time to protest against this impertinent habit of holding up other people, who do not happen to belong to the same profession as the hon. Member, to public ridicule and opprobium.
I gather that the hon. Member for East Nottingham objects to this world movement in the direction of social reform. May I invite the hon. Member to go through the list to which he treated the House this afternoon and examine the kind of people, who are obliged to become participants of the benefits of that social reform. May I ask the hon. Member whether it has ever struck him that a singular and significant fact emerges from such an examination as this—that the people who are expected to benefit most and in whose interest social reform has been undertaken happen to be in the main the men and women who do the work of this country. They are the working-class people. They are the people who, as far as manual labour is concerned, create the wealth of the country. Is it not rather a singular reflection upon the system under which we live that those who by their manual
labour, and as far as manual labour is concerned, create the wealth of this country, have to call in the aid of the national Parliament, administrative bodies, and so on, throughout the country, in order to rectify the bitterness, the hard and difficult consequences for them, that accrue from what I am pleased to call the present capitalist system?
I will take one point to which the hon. Member has referred, the problem of housing. People who belong to the landed aristocracy of this country are not troubled with the housing problem. The trouble they have is not that they have too little room in which to live but that they have too much. Their trouble is as to which house they will live in for a few weeks of the year. Some of them have so many that they cannot manage to do it at all. On the other hand those who do the hard toil of the country, those who dig and delve in the bowels of the earth and those who go into the countryside to produce our harvests, are compelled to live in conditions which other grades of society are not called upon to endure. You have to embark upon social reform, not because the people who are participants desire it so much, but because that is the only way that society has yet discovered of correcting the unfortunate results in which an unrestricted capitalist system involves them. You have to undertake a national form of education. Why? Because you have so impoverished the workers that the workers cannot provide education for themselves. You have to undertake a national provision of housing. Why? Because you have reduced working class people to so low a level of earning capacity that they cannot provide houses for themselves. You have to provide for the working classes in various other social ways, to provide unemployment benefit, and so on. Why? Because you presume the existence under the capitalist system of a certain limit of unemployment. We say that you have no right in a well regulated society to assume the existence of unemployment at all. It is your business, not to presume the existence of unemployment, but to provide for the removal of unemployment altogether.
In the absence of a housing policy, what would the hon. Member opposite suggest? There are people in my own neighbourhood, not very far removed from my own door, who at this moment
are living in houses which were built with three bedrooms, and they are now living 23 people to a house. That is not an isolated example. Such instances can be numbered by the score, and they do not concern merely my constituency; they concern everyone else's constituency. I ask the hon. Member for East Nottingham what is to be done. Is it not obviously necessary that because of the extreme poverty of these people the nation should step in and relieve them, not merely from the physical discomfort, but should relieve their young children from the moral dangers of such conditions? What is the justification for the provision of old age pensions? It is that you have so kept your workers in a condition of underpayment up to the time of their pension age that they have been unable during those days to provide for the time when they can no longer provide for themselves. Because of their lives of underpayment they have to call upon the State to save them from the effect of an old age spent in unemployment.
What does the hon. Baronet suggest should be done in my part of the country now? My constituency is in South Wales. I had the honour the other day of going with a deputation to the Minister of Health, and while we were waiting for the Minister to appear an old colleague of mine in the county council of which I was a member produced for mc 12 pay sheets duly signed and stamped by the representative of certain colliery companies in South Wales. The hon. Baronet who represents East Nottingham is opposed to social reform. Let me tell him what I saw. There was one pay sheet which disclosed the amazing fact, that one of these men had worked six days, had put in every hour possible in the day during that week, had paid his boy who worked with him, had had deductions taken from his pay to provide for the doctor and so on according to the standard and the ideal laid down by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten), and what was the result? He had the magnificent sum of 1d. to take home to his wife that week.
That has not been the result of social reform. We have to call in social reform in South Wales just now in order to correct an absolutely unrestricted form of capitalism. We shall have to extend our hospitals and to undertake all kinds
of public activity of that character. Why? Because the people who represent the same point of view as hon. Members opposite like to have absolute free play, laissez faire as they say, in industry, master and man settling their own affairs in their own way, and the masters, because they are stronger every time, winning every time, and because they win every time hundreds and thousands of my fellow-men in South Wales are now living on a wage that is not consistent with anything but semi-starvation. I invite the hon. Baronet, before he talks in such a glib way about social reform not being necessary, to come down to South Wales for a week, and spend his time, not upon the income he is now receiving, but upon the wage that South Wales people are receiving, and he will then be corrected of the silly notion that social reform is always wrong, and that the working classes should live their lives as best they can.

Mr. D. COWAN: I take part in this discussion with considerable diffidence, for two reasons. The first reason is that I had not the privilege of being present at the beginning of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten). The second reason is that some of the comments I intended to make on that speech have already been made from the other side of the House. With other hon. Members of the House I always listen with enjoyment, and sometimes even with profit, to my hon. and learned Friend, and as one interested in education I always listen to him with a deep gratitude, because the oftener the hon. and learned Member gives utterance to the views he entertains the better it is for the cause of education; the more he seeks to put education back the farther it will go forward. In one particular, at any rate, I have derived a special sense of enjoyment not only from the hon. and learned Member's speech, but from his manner of delivering it, because ho seems to me to be the embodiment of the kind of person that we were told the old schoolmaster was. My hon. and learned Friend is an authority upon every subject that comes before the House. It may be health or housing or education or liquor or law or lunacy, on all those matters the hon. and learned Member speaks with the utmost authority, or at least with the utmost assurance.
So to-day, although I came in rather late, I am not sure that I missed very much, because at the point when I entered he was just giving us a rehash—not a "tasteless rehash," as the Prime Minister said yesterday—of the speeches which we have had from him before. Those speeches are a travesty of the present and a misrepresentation of the past. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member was able to keep Knox out of his speech to-day, but on every previous occasion on which he has addressed the House on this matter he has referred to the great scheme of John Knox. If the hon. and learned Gentleman knew history as well as I presume he knows law, he would have known that the scheme of John Knox was never put into operation, very largely 6wing to the action of a class whose views are pretty much what his are just now—that class privileges should be preserved and that the masses should remain in darkness. The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to the lack of housing for the many and the excess of land in the hands of the few. It was owing to the action of the nobility at the time of the Reformation that many of them became possessed of the land in which their successors now rejoice. The hon. and learned Gentleman rails against the provision of scholarships in order to provide poorer boys and girls with some opportunity of receiving learning. In fact, he seemed to throw, if not a slur, at least some suspicion, upon the advantage of learning in itself. When I hear the hon. and learned Member speak, I wonder how much higher he would have advanced, politically and otherwise, if he had not been subject to the disadvantage of a university education. The fact should not be hidden from the House that anyone who takes advantage of a university education in Scotland or in England is receiving more in the way of subsidy and scholarships than any child in any elementary or secondary school.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Not in my day.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. COWAN: I advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to look up the financial statistics of the University of Glasgow, of which I have the honour to be a graduate like himself. I remember him there as a very brilliant student, and
I then looked up to him; I am not so sure that I look up so much to him now. I think that particularly those who have had the advantage of endowments given in the past should be very chary of questioning some endowments being made now. In that respect the least we can do is to be worthy of our ancestors. I am sure that all here who listened with great pleasure to the hon. and learned Member have asked themselves whether the hon. and learned Member really has the courage of his convictions, or, if not of his convictions, has he the courage of his utterances. Does he carry those plans as to education out in the circle in which he wields power to do so? I do not know—I rather think I do know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has at least one child in his family—there may be more. I should just like to know with regard to that particular one, or it may be more, whether he has put into practice the theories which he propounds with so much humour and acceptance in this House. If he says "Yes, I thoroughly believe in it and will not allow my children to continue at school for any length of time, but will make them go to the University of Adversity"—as he called it—"and let them learn everything there," then this House will pay some respect to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If I am supposed to answer that question, I would say—

Mr. COWAN: May I say that I did not ask for an answer? I said I expected the hon. and learned Member would put it to the House himself.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If the hon. Gentleman does not want an answer, I will not give it. I certainly gave my children the education I have not time to give myself. I would have much preferred to educate them myself if I had had the time. I gave them an education, but it was entirely a thing done by myself and not by the State. I would as soon think of feeding people on Government bacon, such as we had in the War—cheap and nasty.

Mr. COWAN: If I may say so, the reply which the hon. and learned Member has very kindly given does not touch the point. He has not been arguing that education paid for by the parent is good, but that education paid for by the State is bad.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is because it is nationalised, under State control and State officials, that I object.

Mr. COWAN: The hon. and learned Member found fault with compulsion. Compulsion in many forms is disagreeable, but it is sometimes very salutary. Where the child is not able to do for itself we have reached the stage when the State should do something for it. You may not like compulsion as a policy in education, but you must remember that during the War we put on compulsion. The needs of the country demanded the lives of young men, and there was many a young man who did far more for the State in those days than the State ever did for him in his youth. I feel it is due to myself, to my constituents, and so far as I can speak to Scotland that I should try at least to assure this House that, to put it at the very mildest, there is another view of education in Scotland than that peculiar, I should -not like to say to Spring-burn, but to the hon. Member for Springburn. I hope he will take any criticism offered in the very best of parts, just as we take his. I do not think he really means to slander any great profession, as has been said. He simply is afraid that if education were more general than it is there would be, perhaps, less work for the legal profession.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have had a very interesting Debate, but as the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) was framed to deal with the Departments only concerned with the social services, the discussion has been of a rather limited character. I am anxious that we should be able to talk about the Departments of the Civil Service as a whole. I understand this is practically the last opportunity this House will have this year of surveying the Civil Service Departments as a whole. We now have an opportunity of reducing taxation. I do hope hon. Members will realise that, and will do their utmost to persuade the Government to reduce it. After all, when we come to the Budget in a few weeks' time—on the 1st May, I understand—it will be far too late, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer
will have made up his mind what the taxation is to be and will know what expenditure has been allowed by the House. It will be too late. Last week we had an opportunity to reduce taxation, this week we have another opportunity, and next week, before the House rises, we shall have an opportunity of reducing expenditure, and thereby taxation. The Army and Navy, which we have already discussed, gave us very valuable opportunities, but, I Venture to say, there is still an enormous scope within the ambit of the Civil Service Departments for getting a very considerable reduction of expenditure. After all, the figures we are faced with at the present moment in the Civil Services are perfectly colossal.
Before the War, the whole of the Civil Services cost £57,000,000. To-day they are going to cost £317,000,000. That is to say that on the Civil Services alone we are spending over five and a-half times-what we spent before the War. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hilton Young) said a very short time ago that you must take into account, necessarily, the War pensions, and the various expenditures on War services, which have not yet run out. But if you take off the £90,000,000 of War pensions, and allow—I believe it is a very large figure—£100,000,000 for War services not yet run out, although you deduct those two very large items, you will find we still spend more than twice on the Civil Services what we spent before the War. My hon. Friend also said you must-take the cost of living into account, but if you compare the cost of living to-day with what it was before the War you will find that to-day it is only 86 per cent. more than it was in 1914. Then look at the enormous staffs we have to-day compared with our staffs before the War. We have now practically—within a few hundreds—350,000 Government officials, against 277,000 before the War. That is to say, we have to-day over 70,000 more Government officials than we had in the year 1914. What I am sorry to see is that if you compare the figures to-day with the figures last year, in spite of all this agitation for economy, all the agitation in this House, in the Press, and in the constituencies, Government officials during the last 12 months have only decreased by a little over 4 per cent. We really cannot in these days of difficult money afford to
have over 70,000 more Government officials than we had before the War.
If you take the salaries as a whole—not individual salaries—the whole bulk of the salaries of Government officials, you find they are out of all proportion to what we can afford at the present moment. I have a very remarkable document here, comparing the salaries in bulk to-day with what they were before the War, and it gives a column showing the basic salary as well as the bonus. We find that in very nearly all the Departments the actual bonus now being paid to Government officials is very nearly as large as the whole of their salaries before the War. You find that in the Foreign Office. The bonus paid to Foreign Office officials is very nearly equal to the whole of their salaries in 1914. You will find similar figures—I have them all here—in the Post Office, in the Customs and Excise, in the Inland Revenue. I will give one figure. In the Post Office the bonus paid to Post Office officials costs over £14,000,000 at the present moment, and the whole of their salaries before the War were only a little over £14,000,000. In the Treasury—the Department, after all, which ought to look after expenditure more than any other Department in the State—the bonuses paid to Treasury officials to-day amount to a larger sum than he whole of the salaries paid to the Treasury in 1914. You will find in the War Office—I have the figures here—that the bonus paid to War Office officials is, within a few hundreds, equal to the whole of the salaries of War Office officials in the year 1914—

Mr. WALLACE: A larger staff.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: A larger staff with, I believe, 20,000 less fighting men. This really cannot go on. We must reduce expenditure, because it means such an enormous lot in the reduction of taxation. I believe every single £4,500,000 you save enables you to take one penny off the Income Tax, or, if hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway prefer it, you can get more taxation off tea and sugar. Every single party in the State recognises, I think, that you must reduce the present limit of taxation. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer is never weary of stating it, you have the Liberal ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna, who is never weary of
repeating it, and I believe hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway know perfectly well that the present large measure of unemployment is very largely due to the enormous pressure of taxation at the present moment. After all, taxation in this country is not comparable to taxation in other countries of the world. Do not take small countries, but take our great Allies. What do you find? You find that in this country our taxation per head of the population is nearly six times what it was before the War, you find that in Italy taxation is about half ours at the present moment, you find that in the United States of America taxation to-day per head of the population is only one-third of what it is in this country. In none of the countries which stood by us during the War and some of which suffered far more heavily than we did, has taxation increased in such great proportion as our taxation has increased since 1914.I should like to give a few instances of excessive expenditure in the Civil Service. The worst of it is, that if one gives instances they are called trivialities, but if one gives no instances at all, then the immediate retort is, "You have got no ease when you have not specified any item of expenditure." Any instances one may give must seem very small when compared with the enormous bulk of expenditure, but those instances in Civil Service are cumulative, and if, at very short notice, after looking into these Estimates this morning, I can supply a few, there must be thousands of others. I came across one this morning which I will give to the House. The Geddes Committee recommended that the Afforestation Department should be abolished. In their opinion it was doing no good and was wasting a good deal of money. I have here a report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the question of afforestation. I will quote from it a few lines regarding a case which was brought before him of the High-meadow Sawmill working account:
I have been furnished with the accounts which show that £6,352 was expended in the purchase of machinery and plant and its installation. Of this sum £3,632 represents the price, paid to the Timber Supplies Department for the machinery and plant, and the balance, £2,720, was, for the most part, the cost of labour and materials, expended upon installation. The mill was in operation from August, 1919, to June, 1920, and the loss on working during those ten months amounted to£3,717. Upon the abandon-
merit of the undertaking and the disposal of the machinery and plant, there was a loss on the total original outlay in respect of machinery, plant, and installation of £4,781, making, with the loss of £3,717 on working, a total loss upon the undertaking of £8,498, apart from any provision for interest on capital.
That is one small instance. It may be called a trifling instance, but I maintain that it illustrates what is going on all over the Civil Service. I could produce instance after instance showing where expenditure can be cut down. I am only sorry the Civil Service Estimates are being produced so late. It has been perfectly impossible, for the purposes of this Debate, to cope with the flood of Estimates which has fallen upon one for the last few days. They have been much later than usual, and it is a pity that hon. Members have not had more time to look into these important documents before they are called on to debate the whole question. I believe that still only the feeblest efforts are being made by many of the Departments to reduce their staffs and expenditure, and many of the savings they do show are not real savings but automatic savings owing very largely to the reduction in the cost of living. Very often salaries in bulk show a reduction which is less than the actual automatic decrease in the bonus, and therefore, instead of there being an actual genuine reduction, there is an increase, when account is taken of the automatic reduction of bonus. I will give one or two instances in regard to the Board of Education, but in doing so I am not in the least criticising education as such. I am merely pointing out where it appears to me there is excessive expenditure on administration. I find that the administrative staff in the Education Office has actually been increased since last year. The total salaries of this staff have been reduced by £63,000, but of that reduction, which appears upon paper to be very considerable, the bonus amounts to practically the whole. The Inspector and Examining Branch has increased its staff and has reduced its charge for salaries by £42,000, but there again we find it is not a genuine reduction, because the automatic reduction of bonus amounts to £48,000, or more than the total reduction shown on the Paper. The payment to the Chief Medical Officer is increased by £200, although he already gets £2,200
as Principal Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health. In the Geological Survey in the Education Department there was a fall of £5,200 in bonus. It was automatic and absolutely necessary. They could not have avoided it, but it produces a saving in the total Vote of only £1,500, and the travelling expenses are increased by 20 per cent.
If one chose to take these White Papers and go through them, it would become apparent that the same thing was happening in Department after Department. In the Customs and Excise there was last year one secretary at £1,370 per year. Now there are two secretaries at a cost of £2,800. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Safeguarding of Industries Act!"] I do not know whether it is due to that or not. My point is that at the present moment we should not be increasing the number of officials. In this Department also we find that the permanent staff has increased to the extent of 240 officials. This is set off by a reduction in the number of temporary assistants. That is a very bad plan because it is infinitely easier to reduce the number of temporary assistants than to reduce the number of people in permanent positions. I maintain that the present position is very grave. The Revenue Accounts for this last fiscal year show a surplus of about £45,500,000, but it is not a surplus of recurrent income because it includes capital receipts for war stores and items of that sort which we shall not have in other years. If we are really going to get a substantial reduction in taxation the Departments must do far more than they are doing now.
I feel strongly that the whole of the Report of the Geddes Committee should be reconsidered. Over and over again, in that Report the Committee not only specify particular economies, but say that in other respects many economies might be effected. I, personally, feel that the broom should once more be put over all these Departments. I am not satisfied that the Government has gone nearly far enough in the adoption of these recommendations. I believe there are thousands of barnacles still sticking to the side of the ship and every single one of these limpets is a little centre of expenditure only too anxious to increase its own importance at the expense of the British taxpayer. If this Report were
very carefully gone over again that would be found to be so. I very respectfully submit that the Government ought to appoint a Select Committee of Members of this House to review the whole of the Geddes Committee Report, and that the Select Committee should be able to call witnesses. Until reconsideration has taken place, until we have a proper review, quite independent of the Government of what the Geddes Committee reported, I do not believe we shall get a proper reduction in taxation or get full value for the money we are spending.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The House has listened with deep interest to the informative speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and if he will excuse me, before I refer to the latter part of his speech I will ask the House to consider the broad aspect of the Civil Service Estimates. The consideration of these Estimates always raises acute differences of opinion on both sides of the House. In one quarter they are thought to be excessive, and in other quarters they are thought to be not large enough, but I think there is complete agreement in all quarters of the House that, where 20s. of the public money is being spent, whether it is raised from taxation or from the rates, there should be in return 20s. of value received. Let the House consider the method they have adopted to endeavour to secure some control over our national expenditure. During the last few years hon. Members in Committee upstairs, on the Floor of the House, and in speeches on the public platform, have endeavoured to impress on the Government and the public the necessity for securing reductions in national expenditure. When I say that hon. Members have done so, I include Members in all quarters of the House. I will endeavour to approach this subject from a non-party point of view.
Last year the Government appointed the Geddes Committee to review national expenditure. I think that Committee did excellent work, but their main work was addressed to the fighting services. Most of their time was spent in examining expenditure on the Army, Navy and Air Force. Their recommendations have been made to this House, and the Government has decided to accept certain of the recommendations and reject others. The
hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), in the concluding, portion of his speech, recommended that a Select Committee should be appointed, really to continue the work done by the Geddes Committee. Let the House consider the Civil Service Estimates in this connection. A large portion of the money devoted to the Civil Service comes from taxation, and a large sum is raised by rates. We have these two taxing authorities, the National Exchequer and the local exchequers.
In regard to services which are locally administered and which are receiving State grants, there should be some Committee appointed with power to examine into that expenditure. I know that the system of block grants is going to be inquired into by the President of the Board of Education, but the consideration of these Estimates, I think, opens up a much larger subject. During the course of the last few months, I have received more than one request from people in Scotland that the Government should set up some Committee to inquire into the expenditure of public money, whether raised by the rates or from taxation. Such a Committee would serve a very useful purpose. It would direct public attention minutely to the channels of public expenditure. The mere issue of the Geddes Report clearly revealed the extraordinary interest of the public in this subject, and if I might mention a factor to which I think the attention of the public might be directed mere particularly it is this, that throughout the Report they adopt the comparative method, they show that by comparison services to-day are costing so much, and services a new years ago were costing so much less, they compare the cost of a unit in one district with the cost of a unit in another district. A small Committee, which need not be a Select Committee, composed of Members of this House, Members representing the large rate-paying districts of the country, and presided over, it may be, by some leading official from the Treasury, would be very useful. There are to-day, I know, several leading officials of the Treasury who have retired from, that Department, whose services might be available for this work, and by the examination of expenditure in one district, by comparing that expenditure with expenditure in another district, and by publishing these facts to the ratepayers and to the taxpayers, I
think you would set up at once a lively and more direct interest in this large expenditure of public money.
I raise this subject this evening in no controversial sense. I believe that hon. Members in all quarters of the House not only share equally in this desire to secure twenty shillings' worth of work for the expenditure of twenty shillings of public money, but realise that our present high expenditure cannot continue. One or two hours ago, in conjunction with my Scottish colleagues, we listened to a deputation of Edinburgh business men who have come to London to urge the Government and Members of this House to reduce expenditure with a view to lowering taxation, and they pointed out to hon. Members from all quarters of the House, in the Committee Boom upstairs, that the excessive taxation and the burden of rates are crippling industry and forcing men into the Bankruptcy Court. There is to-day a deep-seated feeling in the mind of every ratepayer, whether man or woman, that in regard to public money, whether it be expended by the State itself or by local authorities throughout the country, there is considerable room for big reductions of public expenditure without lowering the standard of efficiency in the local services. If that be the case—and I think that is the criticism directed from all quarters against national expenditure during the last few years—the issue of the Geddes Report is a complete justification of every criticism levelled against the Government of the day from all quarters of the House. I say that in no controversial sense, but, to point a moral. The moral is this, that a body of well-informed, capable, keen business men, directing their attention to the expenditure of public money, had but to sit a very few months before they were able to issue a Report which was a complete surprise to the British public.
If that be true in the national sphere, I suggest that it is true in the sphere of services which are locally administered, and which are financed partly by taxation and partly from the rates. I think that hon. Members who are in close touch with local authorities throughout the country will agree with my main contention that services which are financed from these two quarters could be better administered at a much smaller expense. Therefore, I hope the Government, maybe not this
evening, but in the course of time, through pressure which will be raised in this House and in the Press, will agree that these services need examination. We compare our expenditure to-day with that of pre-War years, but I suggest that that comparison is an illusory one. We are to-day a much poorer nation than we were in 1914, and what this country could well afford in 1914 it is not evident that we can afford to-day. I do not on this occasion desire to question any particular figure, or to direct the attention of the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green has done, to the particular expenditure of the Government, but this I will say, that the greatest social reform this country can perform to-day is to secure a reduction in our total expenditure, so that our yearly Budget will balance, and by that means enable Great Britain to return to some measure of prosperity.
The hon. Member for Wood Green reminded the House that the annual accounts do not balance. It is little realised that, although on Saturday the papers showed to the public that there was a surplus of revenue over expenditure of £45,000,000, the real truth is Very different, namely, that taking the total revenue from taxation in comparison with the total expenditure of the State, the total expenditure of the State exceeded by £140,000,000 the actual revenue last year. Under our system of bookkeeping the Government took credit for £140,000,000 through the sale of national assets, and they borrowed £15,000,000 through the Unemployment Act. The surplus is said to be £45,000,000, but in reality this nation spent last year £140,000,000 more than we raised by taxation. That we did in a boom year. To-day there are lean days before us, and the Budget of 1923 will be an unpleasant one for any Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let us in the meantime, while things are bad and before they get worse, take stock of our situation and, with the assistance of public men in this House and of public men associated with local authorities, and with the cordial assistance of leading officials of the Treasury, endeavour to secure some further development of the Geddes Committee along the lines of securing that the ratepayers' money, as well as the taxpayers' money, will be well spent in future years.

Mr. JOHN MURRAY: I wish I could take the view of the Geddes Report which was taken by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), who has just sat down. The real truth is that economy is a thoroughly unpopular subject with the mass of the people of this country, and that what the mass of the people most like is Government expenditure. I am not condemning economy, but what I want to point out is that the economists, until the Geddes Report was published, had nothing definite to speak about. They could not get inside the Government Departments, and they could not possibly know where economies could be made, and they had to be given a bible before their labours could be of the slightest use. That bible the Government gave them, but I have not observed any particular measure of gratitude among the economists to the Government for giving them their shot and shell. Secondly, in order to persuade the people of the country that very drastic measures of Government economy were necessary, no party declaration, no Government declaration, no declaration from the Opposition, would have sufficed. The Government had to invent a way of demonstrating in large to the nation that economy was necessary, and it chose the method of the Geddes Committee and the Geddes Report, and it has been justified, as proving that there is a case for economy, proving it to the nation and in particular to the Labour party, and as giving the economists their chance to use facts and arguments which were outside their reach before, so that in a general way it is the Geddes Reports which have made possible all the economists' speeches and given edge and point to them.
I was much struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), whose services to economy are outstanding, and by the long list of highly-paid Civil Service posts which he was able to bring before the House. It is true that the posts are there, that the salaries are being paid, and that these men are doing work, but the real question is not whether they are there or whether they are being paid and doing their work, but what is the work they are doing, and how do they come to be doing it. The question which I wish to put to the hon. Member for Wood Green is this: How does he suppose that all this work comes to be accumulated
upon the central organs of government in London? I wish to suggest to the House that this is really a phase of highly centralised government, of over-centralised government, of over-centralisation of functions of government here, instead of the decentralising of them to local authorities elsewhere and also to voluntary bodies, that as long as we have the fashion of concentrating functions of government, functions of organisation, in the Government's hands in London, so long shall we have an inflated Civil Service, and that the only cure for this position is one that can be stated and proved, I believe, in perfectly general terms. We must get out of the way of doing so much in London, and in particular the country must unlearn a bad lesson which it has been learning hard for many years, namely, that the right way to get a thing done is to get it done by a grant from the central Government. That is really a principle of corruption. A locality may have an idea, a good idea, but it will not carry it out unless the central Government foots the greater part of the bill, or at least a good part of the bill, and the result is that business comes to London, bureaucrats are required to deal with the applications, more bureaucrats are required to administer the results, and more still to supervise with every form of inspection the work of all the rest.
The only cure is that we should accept it that centralisation has gone too far, that we should seek to build up and improve in every way the local government of the country, to extend the powers and responsibilities of the local bodies, and, in particular—and this is the point in regard to which I wish to protest most strongly—that we should bear our witness to the country against the general adoption throughout the land of the theory that the way to get a thing done is to go to the Government for a grant. The Government can only give grants if it first takes the taxes. Nobody wishes to pay taxes, but everybody hopes—and I have said it here before—to get more money back in grants than they send to London in taxes. They always get less, because bureaucracy costs so much. I want to suggest to the economists that what they ought to attack is the constant centralisation of the functions of government in Whitehall, and the not sending down to those bodies of functions which ought to be devolved upon them, and
which could be far more efficiently and far more economically carried out by local bodies within sight and reach of the, people with whom they are working, in stead of by armies of bureaucrats in this quarter of the country.

Lord E. PERCY: I should like to say one word in support of the speech of the hon. Gentleman to which we have just listened. I think there is no question of economy which does not bring home the fact that the time is ripe for a reconstruction of local government, that we are at the stage at which we were on the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars, when reconstruction has to take place, and we are neglecting that most important point of reconstruction which concerns this country at the present moment. I feel convinced, if the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) will permit me to say so, that however minute our perusal of the Estimates, however good the work of the Geddes Committee or the work of Select Committees or Royal Commissions, they cannot, as has been said by the last speaker, really reduce the scale of the Government's expenditure. That can only be done by a very fundamental devolution of all those tasks which are now carried out jointly by the central and local governments, and I cannot help regretting that in a Debate such as this, which hangs entirely on the administration of local government, we should have to discuss this question without the presence of the Minister of Health who is really responsible even more than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for that work which can alone bring real economy in this country.

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: I have only one or two words to say, and I would not venture to say them, except for the interesting and original contribution made to the Debate by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. J. Murray). I am very sorry to find that, having made so interesting a contribution, he has left the Chamber. He said that one of the cures for this over-expenditure was decentralisation. If I understood him aright, he said that the over-centralisation of administration in London is one of the causes of the high expenditure from which we suffer. I have been unable to attend during the earlier hours of the Debate this afternoon, because I had to attend a meeting of the Welsh
Parliamentary party, and I do not think I am giving away secrets when I say that most of the time we were discussing a draft Home Rule Bill. Most of us, I think, being good patriots, agreed that Home Rule was a good thing in itself; but we met some very strong opposition from certain Members on the ground that they were convinced that Home Rule in any shape or form, particularly in the form in which we meant to bring it forward, was going to cost us a great deal of money, and the rock of difference this afternoon, as it has been before, was really the rock of extra expenditure. Therefore, I was going to give an invitation to the hon. Member for West Leeds, with whom on other questions I almost always agree, to come and address us, and show us how in the matter of decentralisation it is possible to bring about reduced expenditure. If any other hon. Member has any suggestion to make, I am sure I and any of my Welsh colleagues would be very much obliged to-receive any help out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves at present, and, when the Bill comes before the House, enable us to obtain support in quarters where we cannot now obtain it.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), his speech was couched in general terms, as have been, if I may say so, a good many of his recent speeches on finance. We all thoroughly agree with him, I think, that economy is a desirable thing, and something devoutly to be wished for and to be sought. If I may parody the well-known dictum, we are all economists in these days. The trouble is that we find it so difficult to know which is the next step to take. The hon. Member made a remark which struck me as being not entirely fair to the Government. He said that the fact that the Geddes Report had recommended so many millions' reduction, alone amounted to a justification of all the charges that had been made in this House as to the extravagance of the Government. I am not prepare to accept that, and T would only make one reference to it. I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with the recommendations of the Geddes Report in regard to education, for instance, which is one of the biggest cuts they mentioned. The moment I mention that I find, to my delight, that my hon. Friend disapproves entirely of that
enormous cut. If he will cast his memory back a few days, he will remember that the War Office and the Admiralty had in the same way rejected recommendations that were made, and have adopted others. I am not a business man; I am not a financier, and do not know half as much of the inner working of Government Departments as some hon. Members who have spoken; but I give way to none of them in my enthusiasm for economy. My difficulty, however, is as to how it is to be achieved. I have listened to previous Debates in this House, and to this Debate. Very good speeches in their way have been made, but they have not been exceedingly helpful. What I want to know is, how we can economise? Are there any suggestions forthcoming from hon. Gentleman of experience? If so, let them be handed over to the Government. The Government have made them a present of the Geddes Report. Now let them be magnanimous and reciprocate, and give the Government something to go on with. Let them make suggestions, and let them be considered and deliberated upon, and, if possible, adopted.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

(CLASS 1.)

HOUSES OF PAELIAMENT BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £75,250, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."—[Note: £40,000 has been voted on account.]

Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
I ought to explain the precise significance of this reduction. Last Session a, proposal was put forward that time recorders for speeches should be put up on each side of the House, so that any Member speaking might know how long he had been speaking, and any Member coming into the House would know exactly how long the speaker had been addressing the House. Mr. Speaker suggested that if the Office of Works were satisfied, a vote of
the House could be taken on this matter. Tenders were invited from various firms, whose representatives were shown over the building while the House was not sitting, and these tenders were submitted to an unofficial Committee upstairs. We were satisfied that all the conditions which the Office of Works might lay down would be carried out by these firms. It would be unfair if I were to state the exact cost of any tender, but to satisfy the minds of Members who think it might be costly, I can say at once that it would be less than £100. The conditions which the Office of Works would wish to lay down, as I understand, were that all machinery should be below the Floor of the House, which could be easily attained, that no wiring should be in sight, and that the time recording apparatus should not mar in any way the harmony of this beautiful building. That is satisfied. There was an absolute guarantee from all firms that no wiring should be in sight, and that the actual time recorders on each side above the Gangway should correspond to the clock. The dial case would be the same, but the dial would merely indicate 60 minutes. The unofficial Committee which considered the matter upstairs were unanimously of opinion that everybody would know when a speaker was on his second round of 60 minutes. We have not to consider the third or fourth round, because the speeches nowadays are not like those Artemus Ward described in a Fourth of July oration as something which took four hours to pass a given point. But we are still considerably bothered with long speeches, reminding us of Pope's famous description of the Alexandrine line:
That, like a wounded snake, drags its slow length along.
8.0 P.M.
My own view is that the effect of having a time recorder facing the speaker would be in the direction of making him abbreviate his remarks, and if he be unduly trespassing on the time of the House, then hon. Members, knowing how long he has taken, will exercise some of that gentle persuasion which we are in the habit of exercising when we say, "Divide, divide!" and so forth. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is not in his place, because I understood that he was going to oppose, and I should like to hear his reasons for opposing. I
was told that he thinks that it would exercise an intimidating effect upon new Members, and that that was the line he was going to take. I do not believe for one moment that that would be the case. I cannot imagine, for instance, the Recorder of the City of London, whom, I suppose, we must class as a new Member, being in the slightest degree intimidated by seeing the clock indicating to the nearest half minute the time he has taken for a speech. An hon. Member has just mentioned the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He, I believe, takes about 40 hours of the time of the House in a Session. I worked out the other day, though I do not know whether my calculation is accurate, that in a long Session there are, after you have deducted the time for questions, the time for points of Order, the interruptions by Black Rod, counts, and so forth, not more than 1,200 hours at the disposal of this House for debate. That means that there are not two hours for each Member, including those on the Front Benches, and the consequence is that any Member who unduly trespasses on the time of the House is really filching from others, and new Members, despairing of getting into the debates, gradually cease to attend them and go elsewhere. There is another effect. There are certain privileged Members, like my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, who I believe opposes me, who are called upon almost always immediately they want to take part in the Debate, while other Members are thrown on to the dinner-hour. That is very much as though my right hon. Friend and those who are called upon in the early stages of the Debate were to take the asparagus of the Debate and were to hand other hon. Members the stalks to consume during the dinner-hour—a very hard fate which nobody appreciates. I am told the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is another opponent. I am mentioning the opponents only because I receive nothing but encouragement from Members of the House generally on this point. The other day he was called upon at the end of a Debate on India, when only 15 minutes was left, and he refused, on behalf of the Labour party to take part in that Debate. The reason for this,
according to a letter which the hon. and gallant Member wrote to the "Daily Herald," was that he could not possibly develop his argument in 15 minutes. His particular argument on that occasion was simply this—he wanted to make it clear that between the Prime Minister's blood and iron policy and the Labour policy there could be no possible agreement. Anybody who knows and admires the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member knows that in 15 minutes he could make clear the difference between blood and iron and milk and water. So I dismiss that point altogether. There is another point of view, and that is the point of view which Mr. Disraeli put forward after the Session of 1848, which lasted for 10 months. In 1850 various proposals were put forward, and I find that in the "Life of Lord George Bentinck" Mr. Disraeli in discussing them said:
The good sense and the good taste of the House of Commons will be found on a whole to be the best regulators of the duration of a Debate.
That forecast was not verified. As years went on, the House of Commons found it had to adopt the Closure. The Closure means that a great many speeches are never delivered at all, that we do to those speeches what Cromwell did to the House of Commons when he closed it up altogether. There are many speeches reposing in the archives of various Members of the House that have never been delivered at all. Perhaps they may be delivered on future occasions. In the old days debates were probably better attended. The amenities of the House were not so great then. I remember the day when we had only one smoking-room; now we have got many smoking-rooms, and Members can flock elsewhere from this chamber, and we ought to give them greater inducements to stay here, and I am certain that short speeches will tend in that direction. There is the position of Mr. Speaker himself to be considered. He cannot escape from the speeches. The amenities of debate for him instead of increasing have diminished.. It was in reference to one of his predecessors that the lines were written:
Like sad Prometheus fastened to the rock,
In vain he looks for pity to the clock.
The only amenity which has come to Mr. Speaker has been what is called the "Speaker's Chop," which enables him to
retire for dinner, and it is a custom which, I hope, will be conservatively adhered to, liberally interpreted, and eaten without labour. I think this proposal would give him a greater variety of speeches if it has the effect which I think it will have. The effect will be that the visible recorder will appeal to the conscience of the hon. Member who is speaking, and it will appeal to the reason and the justness of those who are his listeners. I venture to forecast that there will be a sensible diminution in the length of speeches, both on the front benches and on the back benches, and it is even more important to diminish those on the front benches than those on the back benches. These time recorders will be controlled by buttons placed either at the entrance or at the Table. If this system fails it will be a very simple process to pass a Standing Order arming the Speaker and the Chairman with powers at any stage of the Debate to limit speeches, and in that way to bring about a sensible curtailment of long speeches; but it is our English method never to try compulsion until we have tried a voluntary means; and it is as a voluntary aid to the reduction of long speeches that I make the proposal to put up time recorders of speeches above each of the Gangways, so that every hon. Member can see exactly how long he is taking.

Mr. LAWSON: I am sorry I cannot support the hon. Gentleman in the Amendment which he has moved. The best argument against his point—that it is possible to put a case in a quarter of an hour—is that it has taken him nearly 20 minutes to move his Amendment. I do not think time recorders would have any effect upon Members who make long speeches. As for the hon. Members and right hon. Members who make speeches of half an hour and three-quarters of an hour, nothing short of a sledge hammer would knock them down; the voice of conscience would have absolutely no effect at all. There are hon. Members who seem to think it is a vital factor for the country, and particularly for their own constituents—indeed, it is now becoming a matter of political propaganda—to see exactly how many square feet in the OFFICIAL REPORT they can cover. That seems to be a particular recommendation of them to the electors. I do not think
a clock would make any difference at all to the time an hon. Member occupied in addressing the House. A much easier way of dealing with him would be to make a Rule, such as there is in all large Congresses, limiting a speaker to five minutes or 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour, or whatever time may be selected. If you would be effectual, the best thing would be to specify a certain time. I would not, however, recommend that to this House, and for this reason, that here we have men of experience whom we should not like to limit to a quarter of an hour; they are men of experience and speak with wide knowledge upon particular questions. At the same time there are other people, people perhaps like myself who, if they speak five minutes, speak about as much as they ought to. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] At any rate, I think the best test is the one suggested by a Tory Prime Minister, who made the test the good sense of this House. In large congresses, where you have a limitation of a quarter of an hour, if the congress does not wish to hear a man it will make that plain to him even inside the quarter of an hour, and as a rule he subsides. I sometimes think the House is rather too generous with the particular delinquents the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) has in mind, and the best thing it can do is to show that good sense of which Mr. Disraeli spoke by expressing itself in no uncertain way. Members sometimes do so now, and I think that is far more effectual than a time recorder. In this matter I am expressing a view which is purely individual. It is not a matter of party outlook at all, and some of my colleagues on these benches will probably smite me hip and thigh for this view, but I am very pleased to have this opportunity of asserting it.

Mr. J. WALLACE: I very cordially support the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), not that I hope very much will come from it, but if we can make a demonstration of any kind in order to shorten the speeches made by some of the hon. Members and right hon. Members of this House, we will have taken a step in the best interests of the House itself. There are some Members of this House to whom I could listen for any length of time, and we know that
when any Debate of importance takes place there are certain hon. Members and right hon. Members who have a prior claim to take part, but while we have a considerable number of live volcanoes in the House, we have also a considerable number of extinct volcanoes, and the latter still attempt to function, however thin the stream of their eloquence may be. I wish we had some system of limiting speeches in this House, and it is because I am in favour of anything that can be done in this direction that I intend to support the hon. Member in the proposal for time recorders he has just made to the House.

Mr. LORDEN: I hope we shall be able to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion. As a comparatively new Member of this House, I have been struck with the number of speeches that exceed 20 minutes, and I think time recorders would bring home to those who make them that other Members of the House want to speak as well.

Sir G. COLLINS: I only desire to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] I think I am entitled to some answer, for notice was given many months ago by my hon. and gallant Friend that he would move on this subject. I well recollect the day the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised this question—

It being a quarter-past Eight of the dock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. MYERS: I beg to move
That, in the opinion of this House, the recommendation of the departmental committee on old age pensions in favour of the repeal of the provisions in the Old Age Pensions Acts as to calculation of means should be adopted and the Old Age Pensions Acts amended accordingly, thereby enabling applicants for and recipients of the old age pension to derive the full benefit of their thrift and personal provision for old age, and to receive assistance from friends, employers, and organisations, without reduction of or disqualification for the full pension.
In submitting to the House this Motion on behalf of the party with whom I am associated in this House, I would ask permission to make one personal reference,
and one only. From the date of the inception of the Old Age Pensions Act to becoming a Member of this House, I served continuously as a member of an old age pensions committee. Perhaps what is more to the point, I was a member of a small sub-committee which was entrusted with the responsibility of adjudicating upon the appeals that were made by old age pensioners against the decision of the Committee. From that experience one could justify every syllable of the proposal before us. Fortunately we are strengthened in our attitude by the Report of the Departmental Committee, which has gone into the whole question of old age pensions. We upon this side of the House, and particularly the party with whom I am associated, have long held the view that an advance in the amount given for old age pensions, and a reduction in the age at which these pensions are made available, could both be justified having regard to existing circumstances.
The proposal, however, which we make on this occasion does not make any suggestion in the direction either of reducing the age or increasing the amount. What we do most emphatically say is that the method of administration of the present Act of Parliament and the hardship it imposes upon many a recipient of the old age pension is of such a nature that some very drastic alteration is essential. In a word, we would make the birth certificate of the applicant for an old age pension the sole test upon which the decision is made. Anyone who comes and presents evidence of the fact that he is of the stipulated age to receive an old age pension, that, I say, should be and could be, the sole test imposed. The evils of the existing system are legion. The first one is the irritation which is caused to a large number of old age pensioners. Most old people look forward for a considerable period to the time when they will be entitled to their pension, which will go to relieve their family, frequently, from a responsibility which they have voluntarily undertaken. No sooner is their application presented, and they are looking forward to its being honoured, than they have a visit from a strange individual. This individual enters the household of these old people—I believe he looks upon this duty as a very unpleasant one, but he has to carry out the law—with a view of ascertaining
what are the means of income of these would-be pensioners. But the annoyance and irritation, and even worse, that is caused to many of these old people is well known to those who have been entrusted with the responsibility of administering the Act.
Questions are directed to these old people to ascertain their income and they cover a wide field. I could give instances where the old people have been primed before the visit of the official so that they may prevent disclosures being made as to their income. Any system or any method which drives old people to that expedient in order to protect their livelihood stands condemned from that point of view alone. Questions are asked about any extra meal they may be given by some friend. I have also heard of instances where inquiries have been made from the old people as to how many fowls they had, what their upkeep cost, and what was the egg-producing capacity per week, and then an average was struck between the cost of the upkeep and the market value of the produce, the amount being put down as part of the income of the old people. Then inquiries are made as to what they made out of their allotments, what they are receiving from friends, what voluntary assistance they get from relatives—these and similar inquiries are made by officials who have the backing of the law. Here and there are people who have at least some small accumulation. Even then the thing is inequitable, for it is very difficult to defend a system which permits cases like this. One person, say, has £400 in the bank, and there is 5 per cent interest calculated, or £20 per year, to be included in the income. Another person has £100, the interest on which is £5, but in this case he draws upon his little capital to augment the £5, so as to keep body and soul together. Every penny of that which is taken from the capital is included as income against that person. This is not so in the other case. This is one of the factors in the interpretation of the Act which cannot be justified.
But the principal objection to the administration of this Act is the penalty which it imposes upon thrift. We have had during this past fortnight voluminous correspondence and communications from all sorts of voluntary organisations in the country—those organisations that we
have been taught in days gone by to support and to be associated with—trade unions, friendly societies, and the like, where life-long contributions have been made by men and women in the hope and belief that at the back-end of their days they would reap the advantage of those contributions of a lifetime. But when the old age pensioner goes round he is informed that if he has a few shillings per week superannuation allowance from a trade union, or a few shillings a week from a friendly society, or some allowance from a benevolent employer after long service at a factory or from a colliery company—if such a person happens to have free coal allocated after a long life at the colliery, or a free house—all those considerations are at once seized upon by the Pensions Department and a penalty is imposed upon the Old Age Pension arising therefrom. These are factors which are objectionable to all self-respecting people, and they are having the effect of stopping those avenues of generosity which in the past have been so much in evidence.
There is another point. Is an old age pension a test of poverty, or is it a reward for service? Do we grant it because people at the age of 70 are poor, or because they have rendered service to the community? The present administration of the law makes an old age pension a poverty test. The Report of the Departmental Committee is very definite upon this point. It says:
The existence of the means limit really introduces the old pauper taint and brands the Old Age Pension as a compassionate grant.
That ought not to be so, and we say very emphatically that if the birth certificate was made the claim for an old age pension being granted, great economies would be effected. If the birth certificate were made the test we could dispense with the Old Age Pension Committee, and all that would be necessary would be merely to check the age of the applicant, and we could effect all those economies which now involve so much expense by the employment of an army of officials, who at present do little more than impose a sort of inquisition upon these poor old people.
With regard to our Motion, the principal argument which will probably be urged against it will be that there is no money to be had, and the country cannot
afford it. We heard that story in the past, when old age pensions were advocated in the first instance. We heard it then at the street corner, and it was only when the pressure of public opinion made the claims af the old people irresistible that old age pensions were granted. There is just as strong a feeling to-day for the removal of those limitations as there was in the old days for the institution of the principle of old age pensions. We shall be told by the Government that there is any amount of sympathy for this proposal, but that there is no money to back it. We cannot accept sympathy without something practical behind it. Sympathy is useless unless backed by something of a substantial character.
I am not going to accept any argument advanced from the point of view that we cannot find the money while we are able to point to avenues of expenditure of a much less desirable kind. If we seek such avenues of expenditure they are legion. While we are expending large sums upon the fighting forces which are very largely futile and all of them wicked, while we are expending the national substance on wicked and futile objects and upon our fighting forces, I decline to listen to any argument which is supported only by the statement that no money can be found for this purpose. We have to look at this question from the point of view of every old person in the country, whether they have a little accumulation of wealth or none at all, because when they reach the age of 70 they have made a definite contribution towards the well-being of the State. Even if they are wealthy people who can meet the test we are entitled to assume that people who do not want the old age pension will not apply for it.
On the Old Age Pension Committees we have plenty of experience in regard to men waiting until they were 72, 73, and even 76 years of age before applying for an old age pension. We are entitled to assume that that state of things will prevail even if our proposal is put into effect. I appeal to the House, having regard to the tremendous volume of opinion in the country in favour of this proposal, to take a broad view and declare an old age pension to be a reward for service to the State, and not a poverty test. Let us encourage those who have served their country well to believe that the country
is going to stand by them in their old age.

Mr. LUNN: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House, while fully recognising the qualities of thrift which have been made manifest by such large numbers of men and women workers, and while desirous of encouraging such efforts among all wage earners as may safeguard their welfare in old age, must have regard to the grave financial exigencies of the country which so seriously affect industry, and cannot, therefore, until more hopeful conditions arise, add to the burdens already borne by the taxpayers of the nation.
In spite of what my hon. Friend who has just sat down has said, I venture to say that those of us in this House who do not sit on the Labour Benches are just as much in sympathy with the peculiar and hard case of old age pensioners as the Labour Members. The Labour party does not possess a monopoly of sympathy with the old age pensioners of this country, but I suggest that this Motion has been introduced at a most unfortunate time. Last Session a similar Motion was introduced with great force and eloquence by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson). On that occasion the whole subject was exhaustively debated, and I do not think in the circumstances of the country to-day that this House is in a better position to extend its recognition of the claim made by the hon. Member who moved this Motion than it was then.
Let us for a moment think of the appalling circumstances in which the industries of this country find themselves at this moment. We have vast numbers of people out of employment, great privations are being endured by the workers in many localities, the bottom has been knocked out of the world's market for British manufactured goods, and we have had an intensive campaign all over the country demanding economy in every direction. Notwithstanding all that, my hon. Friend who moved this Motion asks us to-night to accept the birth certificate as the only test for an old age pension. I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that in the present condition of the country's finance, that would be a very expensive certificate, and I hope my right hon. Friend who sits on the Front Bench
if he speaks this evening, will give us some indication of how this country is going to balance its revenue and expenditure in the financial year on which we have just entered. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer did extraordinarily well, in the face of most difficult circumstances, in not only balancing his account, but in coming out with a substantial margin in his favour. But where is he going to get his revenue from in the year to come, in view of the present condition of industry in this country? That is a puzzle which I think the right hon. Gentleman will find it most difficult to solve.
The old age pensions, in the financial year just closed, have cost this country £26,150,000. According to the Report of the Departmental Committee, if the Motion of my hon. Friend is accepted by this House and in accordance with the limiting conditions imposed in that Report, i.e., that those outside the Income Tax limit are to be included, it would mean an addition to the financial burdens of the nation of at least from £12,000,000 to £14,000,000.

Mr. W. THORNE: And the money would be well spent.

Mr. HANNON: The Departmental Committee indicated allowance for the Income Tax payer. He was not to be included in the old age pensions area, and the Committee pointed out that not less than £38,000,000 would be required. Personally I do not think that would suffice, but, assuming that it would, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to find in the forthcoming financial year another £12,000,000 or £13,000,000, and in addition, heaven knows how much more if the demand for an increase in the old age pension is to be conceded.
The Committee, presided over by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins) did eminently good work in its analysis of the operations of old age pensions. I think too much stress has been laid on the Majority Report and not sufficient attention has been given to the suggestions in the Minority Report. Under the Act of 1919 there was an immediate increase to our permanent taxation of £10,000,000 in order to meet the recommendations made in the Majority Report, for we added 120,000 persons to the old
age pensions list, and doubled the amount of the pension. My hon. Friend this evening spoke in a very touching way, and I am sure the House was very much impressed with it, of the old age pensioner. He said there were two objections to the means test. He objected to have any test of the means of the individual before the old age pension is granted. The test was, he said, a penalty on thrift, and then there was the irritating system of administration on which he used such forcible views. The system in many instances may be objectionable.
As regards Thrift, in the Minority Report of the Departmental Committee it is distinctly emphasised that there was no evidence to justify the assertion that the fact that the old age pension was subject to a means test prevented its full development, nor was there any evidence that the administration was as objectionable as many Members of this House suggested in the Debate which took place last Session. I would like to read an extract from the Minority Report. Undoubtedly this House will pay every respect, having regard to the very distinguished body of gentlemen who signed it, to the Majority Report, and I would ask it to give the same importance to those who signed the Minority Report, and whose administrative knowledge and long experience of public affairs are worth a great deal in attaching a correct judgment to the substance of their Report. These words appear in the Minority Report:
In our view the resentment felt at the so-called inquisitorial method is neither so widespread nor so well-founded as our colleagues think. We have had practically no evidence to show that pension officers act otherwise than humanely and tactfully in their investigations, and while there are some old people who strongly resent being examined as to their means, just as some persons dislike inquiry into their means for Income Tax purposes, the evidence we have heard does not lead us to think that there is anything approaching general dissatisfaction with the system of inquiry. It appears to us that no one who receives benefit from the State can reasonably object to the minor inconvenience which may be involved in showing he is qualified to receive it.
I am afraid that many hon. Members on the Labour Benches do not give sufficient thought to that curious quality of relationship between State administration and the recipient of State benefits. With regard to the inquisitorial side, as long as officials are human beings you will
have such curious inquiries as those to which my hon. Friend has referred, and there will be some pertinacious individual who will count the heads of cabbages or the tails of pigs or anything of that sort as affecting the income of the applicant. But, taken as a whole, the pensions officers are almost invariably well-disposed persons who are anxious to do everything they possibly can to help these people. I do not think any sweeping condemnation of these men in their character as officials ought to be made in this House.

Mr. BARKER: And it has not been made.

Mr. HANNON: With regard to the thrift side, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman)—whose view I do not think will be challenged by the Labour party—made a statement before the Departmental Committee which amounted to this, that at the inception of the scheme the great friendly societies throughout the country were very much perturbed lest their activities should be substantially handicapped by the operation of old age pensions. The Tight hon. Gentleman said, in his evidence before the Departmental Committee, that in point of fact the result had been the reverse, and that instead of injuring the operations of the friendly societies, old age pensions had increased their activities and efficiency in the interest of the members. With regard to the grievances—and I am quite sure there are very many of them—the difficulties which confronted this House in designing for the persons whom it was intended to benefit a measure like the Od Age Pensions Act was always circumscribed by the peculiar difficulties connected with the condition, status and circumstances of the people who were ultimately to benefit. It is almost impossible to draw any discriminating line whereby one group of people who may have a distinct grievance can be detached from another group in whose case the Act may work smoothly and advantageously. I hope that in time it may be possible so to amend the Old Age Pensions Act that the grievances alluded to by my hon. Friend, and alluded to in the Debate last Session by other hon. Members, and particularly called attention to by my hon. and learned Friend who was the Chairman of the Committee, may disappear. At the moment it is almost impossible to deal with individual cases
without at the same time inflicting corresponding injury or inconvenience upon others.
With regard to the question of private benevolence, it is, of course, unfortunate that, where private benevolence can interest itself, or where organised effort on the part of workers comes into play, that should operate to the disadvantage of people who are entitled to receive old age pensions. But there again one is beset by the same difficulty which occurs in regard to difference in circumstances. It is almost impossible to conceive of any Measure which can be at once so comprehensive and so detailed in its scope and construction as to meet all these individual cases. The Labour party, however, is notorious for the structural quality of its economic mind, and I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend and his colleagues that they should set to work and, before next Session comes, when, doubtless, this Motion will again be moved, should devise proposals for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman that will so amend the existing Act that at all events in large measure the complaints which have been made and the objections which have been mentioned will disappear. I give my hon. Friend the greatest possible credit for good intentions, but he has, if I may say so, made hitherto no constructive suggestion.
Since this subject was before the House last Session, we have had the sittings and the very remarkable Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, and I think the Labour party enthusiastically received, except in relation to education, the recommendations of that Committee. The Labour party themselves, at many of their meetings, have advocated national economy in every Department of the public service, and yet, at the same time as they do that, they come to this House and make a sweeping proposal to embrace everyone, short of those who are liable to pay Income Tax, in an old age pension scheme, so that all of us will look forward to the age of 70 as a time for receiving the benevolence instituted by this House. I do not think that that is quite in accord with the lofty aspirations towards economy to which expression has so frequently been given by the Labour party. Take, for example, what has been done by the Government in meeting the recommendations of the Committee on
National Expenditure. We have cut down the Navy Estimates, in the picturesque language of the Parliamentary Secretary, to the bone. We have scraped them to the bone; and at the very time when this country is taking, as I feel sure, deliberate risks in regard to national safety by cutting down its Navy to the very roots, in reference to the limit of its expenditure, in cutting down the Army to the very lowest level of efficiency, and in cutting down the Estimates for the Air Service, the Labour party come to this House, and the only argument that they can adduce against the economy suggestion which we are bound to make is that we are spending too much on the fighting Services. In that condition of affairs, I do not think that this House, in justice to itself or to the interests of the country, can adopt this Motion.
I am sure that every Member of the House would like to see the position of every old age pensioner in this country made as happy and comfortable as possible. For myself, I am quite prepared to go as far as my hon. Friend, and recognise that services rendered in the duties of citizenship ought to be recognised; but this is not the moment at which claims of this character can be advanced. If, with the returning boom in trade which will result from an enlightened policy on the part of the Labour party in dealing with unemployment, the adjustment of disputes, and the creation of a better feeling between employers and employed in this country—if, following on those developments, we have a revival in trade, our markets return, our production is intensified, and men are prepared to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay—then will be the time to come to this House and ask for an increase in old age pensions on the lines embodied in the Motion which has just been submitted. I am sure that in this House we would go a long way to meet the suggestions in this Motion if it were possible to do so, but we cannot without imposing too heavy a burden on the already overtaxed nation; for industry in this country is squirming under the burden of over-taxation, and unless that can be substantially relieved in the near future, I do not know what is going to happen to private enterprise. In these circumstances, this is not the time to adopt
proposals of this quality, and, therefore, I move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Mr. JAMESON: I beg to second the Amendment.
If my hon. Friend will pardon me, however, I cannot quite go the length of agreeing with the reasoning of his. Amendment. I go a great deal further, because I say that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in his pocket £15,000,000—which is just about the figure that would be added to the old age pensions bill if this Motion were to take effect—and if that £15,000,000 were destined for the old age pensioner, I would say that this particular way of giving it to him would be the most foolish and nonsensical way in which it could possibly be done. The result of this Motion would be, not merely to relieve the needy, which is, I think, the first and the only requisite of an old age pension scheme, but would be to provide universal old age pensions for rich and poor alike. I quite understand the risk I am running in faking what may be the unpopular side, because there are very many more people in this country, both rich and poor, who want 10s. a week when they are 70, than there are people who do not; and I hope that hon. Members opposite will bear in mind, if they think that I am a hard-hearted ruffian, that at least I derive no benefit from my hard-heartedness, while at the same time it is pleasant to reflect that their superior benevolence is certainly a thing from which they will not suffer. I have had during the past week a great many letters on the subject of this Motion, some of them hinting at deplorable consequences to myself of an electorial nature; but I reflect that I signed the Minority Report against the very proposal embodied in the Majority Report which the Motion supports, and I think it would be an act of political poltroonery upon my part if I did not give a reason for the faith that was in me then, and for the faith that is still more in me at the present juncture.
It has been represented in my constituency that I am an oppressor of the poor. I like the poor much better than the rich. They are generally very much better fellows. The novelty of the Majority Report was not that it wanted
to provide pensions for the poor, but that it wanted to provide pensions for the rich. According to the Majorty Report, the millionaire can roll up in his motorcar and ask for his 10s. a week when he touches the point of 70 years of age just as much as the poor man. The sun of the Majority Report shines upon the rich and the poor alike. Park Lane partakes of its benefits just as much as Houndsditch does, and accordingly it is a complete misrepresentation to say that it is lack of sympathy for the poor that induces people to oppose this Resolution. On the contrary, the remarkable thing about the Resolution is that it provides pensions for the rich and the poor alike. I have read this afternoon in the OFFICIAL REPORT the last Debate upon this what I have no doubt will prove a hardy annual. The plea for universal pensions, in this Resolution, and in the Majority Report which it follows, was frankly put by the right hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. Barnes) upon the ground, not of need, not of poverty, but of civic right as is was called—that is to say, that any citizen, by the mere fact of his attaining 70 years, had the right to come forward and ask for 10s. a week. There is very high authority for the proposition that we have to feed the- hungry and to clothe the naked, but I have never yet heard that any authority has propounded that one should give 10s. a week to the millionaire when he gets to the age of 70 merely as a matter of civic right, merely because he has attained the age of three score years and ten.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And has paid his Income Tax.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. JAMESON: I think he should pay his Income Tax without the inducement of 10s. a week. Accordingly one wants to remove from this discussion all ideas of pity for the poor or of hard heartedness to the poor. These have nothing to do with the matter, and the discussion can only relevantly be taken upon the footing, not of civic right which we ought to recognise, but that at the age of 70 everyone should be entitled to 10s. a week. There are two or three grounds upon which it is championed in the majority report. The first is the taint of pauperism argument. The idea is that under the present circumstances it is a sort of Poor Law relief to get 10s. a week, but that when the Duke of Westminster is entitled to 10s. a week no one
will be ashamed of taking it, and the taint of pauperism will be removed and everyone will come forward and claim his 10s. a week. I am bound to say that in the evidence laid before that Committee it was negatived by every witness, and upheld by none that I remember, that anyone was ashamed of taking this 10s. a week which is coming when they reach the age of 70. On the contrary, many witnesses said people were rather proud of being old age pensioners, and I think even to-night the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) said that people looked forward with a certain amount of satisfaction to the age of 70 and to becoming old age pensioners. It is surely absurd to say that anyone who reaches 70 and goes up to apply at the office for his old age pension is afflicted with the thought, "I am now a pauper and am taking benefits from the State." As a matter of fact, I think there is very little prejudice now in taking benefits from the State. I have not met anyone who is ashamed of the taint of taking benefits from the State. I have found almost everyone anxious to take as much as possible off the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to grumble if he does not get exactly what he wants, and as a matter of the evidence given before this Committee, and I think as a matter of our own personal experience, we can waive aside this argument about the taint of pauperism altogether. In the second place there was the matter of the inquisition. There, again, the evidence laid was that these inquiries were conducted well and that there was no great amount of irritation. Of course, the argument which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) seems to me to be also very conclusive. These are the days of inquisition. The Income Tax payer has to submit to an inquisition and knows that at the end of it he will not be getting 10s. a week, but will be paying a large sum of money. In every Department these inquisitions take place, and there is no sting about them now. It may be said, as a tribute to the State officials, that they conduct them in a gentle and proper manner. Accordingly I think nothing can be made of this inquisition objection, even if it was a thing which you can weigh against £15,000,000 in the other scale at this time of the day.
Finally, there was the argument of the penalty on thrift. Upon that Committee I think everyone got very tired of these words "penalty on thrift." I asked this question of every witness that mentioned it. "Does anyone fail to practise thrift in order to get this 10s. a week? Do they say, 'Let us eat, drink and be merry in order that we may get 10s. a week when we are 70'? Do they squander their money in order to get 10s. a week when they are 70?" Every witness said "No, there is no restraint upon thriftiness." Accordingly it seems in that sense that the argument that you are putting a restraint and hindering people from practising the virtue of thrift does not hold good. On the other hand, of course, it may be said of every form of State aid which does not rest upon contract or value for services performed but is given upon the ground of need, that if a man does not need it he does not get it and that if a man has by his thrift saved money he does not get the subvention. But that is not the way the State has been in the past accustomed to look at these matters. The same argument has been used on the other side about Income Tax. When the Income Tax began it was said to be a penalty on thrift because the more a man saved and the bigger income he had the more he had to pay, and that was a penalty on thrift. That is perfectly true. It is a platitude that if you give money to a man because he needs it—and if he does not need it he does not get the money—and on the other hand if you take money from a man because he has got it—you obviously do not take it from him if he has not got it—you may say thrift to some extent indirectly comes in. But that is not the principle on which the State has gone. It has always gone on the principle that on the one hand the man who has got the money, no matter how he got it, should be called on to pay, and on the other hand that, if a man wants help, it is because he needs the help he has got to get that help.
So far that has been the principle of the old age pensions. You are only to get the pension because you need it. I think that that is the proper ground, and not that you have to get it, whether you need it or not, because you have reached the age of 70. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got that £15,000,000 for old age pensions, what I want it for
is to decrease the age limit and to put up the amount of the pension. These things are far more necessary than making old age pensions universal. The ultimate ideal is that everybody should have an old age pension, that everybody should be guaranteed a certain amount of comfort when he gets past work. We are probably a long time off reaching that ideal, but meantime, everybody who drew up this Report, both majority and minority, regarded it as provisional. That is, we meant that as soon as the State can afford it the age limit should come down from 70, first to 65 and afterwards below that, and, on the other hand, that the amount of the old age pension should go up from 10s. to 15s. and to £1 These reforms are far more necessary than making old age pensions universal, as the Majority Report does, which does not contain them within the limits of Income Tax at all. Accordingly, the position I would take up is that you must have these reforms first—put up the pension and take down the age before having this so-called reform of giving pensions to rich and poor alike.
I deplore the position taken up that all moneys spent upon the necessary preservation of the defence forces of this country were wicked and should be devoted to other purposes. The defence of this country is the very first duty of the Government of the country. The position taken up is an unhappy augury of what might happen if the Labour party came into power in this country, and is an indication that they would deprive this country of its defence forces in order to give the money to rich and poor alike. The defence of this country was not considered wicked when we could hear the German guns on the coast of Kent, and if we ever get in power any party who want to scatter riches over a smiling country by stripping the country of its defences, it will be a very evil hour indeed for this country. We all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is ground between the upper millstone of the anti-squandermaniacs and the lower millstone of the squandermaniacs. This afternoon we Scottish Members have had a deputation upstairs which stated that there was an imminent threat of bankruptcy to a large number of businesses in this country if 2s. is not taken off the Income Tax. I do not propose to pronounce upon that. But no one, except
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be more delighted than myself if the right hon. Gentleman can on the one hand satisfy the people who do not want to give him money, and at the same time satisfy the people who want money from him, and, among other things, if he can give us £15,000,000 for old age pensions. But I want that £15,000,000 to be given to make the poor and needy comfortable and not, as this Resolution affirms, that everybody, rich and poor alike, should get the old age pension.

Mr. BANTON: I hope that the House will allow me the indulgence which is usually accorded to a Member who addresses it for the first time. I take the opportunity of speaking upon this particular Resolution, because I have within the past few weeks had some experience in dealing with old people employed in a large concern with which I am connected. These old people number between 20 and 30, and range in age from 84 down to 70 years. The firm were anxious to give these old veterans of labour a rest, and they were willing to make their latter years as comfortable as possible. They investigated the cases, and they were willing to be generous, but they found that the standard of life at which these men had been living would be diminished seriously if the allowance given to them did not exceed £1 per week. They would have been willing to grant more than 10s., but it was argued that every shilling granted above the 10s. would be subsidising the Government. They did not feel disposed to take the money of that particular firm to subsidise the Government. They were put in this dilemma—to maintain these old men at an economic loss, or reduce their standard of living, which was a necessity they did not wish to face, or let them go to the guardians, and by going to the guardians they, as ratepayers, would have had to bear the cost, and it would have been a greater cost to the community than if they had been allowed the old age pension without these restrictions which are at present imposed. The question is whether it is possible for the Labour Benches to indicate some means by which they could economise so as to recompense in some way for the extra amount that would be called for.
If hon. Members who talk upon this subject were acquainted with some of the
great number of people who cannot maintain themselves upon the meagre allowance granted to them, and who have therefore to call upon the Poor Law for aid, they would realise that if these people were kept from the Poor Law a great economy to the State would result. That is one consideration, quite apart from any humanitarian feeling. It is said that all Members of the House are sympathetic towards the claims of the poor. We do not claim to have the monopoly of sympathy, but on public bodies I have heard of sympathy so many times that I am rather chary of giving credence to what is expressed. We want to extend our sympathies to those who need it most. Our old people need it most. The seconder of the Amendment reminded us that there were injunctions laid down that we should clothe the naked and feed the hungry, but that there was no injunction that we should grant old age pensions. One of the earliest injunctions laid upon mankind was that we should honour our fathers and our mothers. The State would show appreciation of that very old injunction by conceding the request of the Labour party, and allowing the old age pension to all, irrespective of their incomes. It has been suggested that that would not be wise, because millionaires might participate. I should not be surprised if millionaires, composed as they are to-day, did participate. They are of that particular kind which will take what is available from whatever source it comes, and they would most likely go for their 10s. a week, or they might make arrangements to have the money forwarded quarterly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At any rate, I would not penalise the needy old people because of the few millionaires.
It is also suggested that we might make changes in the law more beneficial than this proposal to the poor. I have just been returned by an electorate which is not small, and I have made much of a point regarding the old people employed by the best employers of labour. There are many good employers of labour who are willing and anxious to help their old workpeople, but they do not feel justified in subsidising the Government. We are often charged with fighting for class legislation. We repudiate that charge. We find that in the granting of pensions there is class legislation at present in operation.
When I read the list of pensions that this House has granted, I find there are some people participating in the generosity of the public to the extent of many thousands a year, but I have never read that there have been any inquiry into any recipient's income, or any investigation as to whether the income would maintain them. The pensions seem to be granted "for services rendered." I submit that the old people for whom I am pleading have rendered services to the State.

Mr. JAMESON: Why!

Mr. BANTON: They have rendered services to the State. An old writer has told us that there are; the soldiers of the ploughshare as well as soldiers of the sword. These poor old people have served their country. I notice that one hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I do not desire to raise any class antipathy, but I would appeal to the kindly sympathies of the House to realise that in the lower walks of life there are men and women who have served the State to the best of their ability.

Mr. HAILWOOD: On a point of Order. May I ask whether—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): It is usual when a new Member makes his first speech, to allow him to do so without interruption.

Mr. BANTON: I appeal to the best that is in the House. I do not wish to arouse the worst. I claim that hon. Members should extend their sympathy to many of the best of our people. There are thousands and tens of thousands in the ranks of the middle class whom this comparatively small dole would enable to end their last years in decent comfort. A poor woman came to me within the past fortnight. She was 74 years of age, and had been at work. In ignorance of the law she had been drawing 12s. to 14s. a week in addition to the 10s. a week from the State. The State discovered what she had done, and sent notice to her of the crime she had committed. The threat was held over her of punishment and she feared coming before the magistrates. On her behalf I interposed with the pensions officer, and here I may say that the officials in the Pensions Department I have always found sym-
pathetic. But there the law stood. This woman received a demand made for the restoration of over £17. Her pension has been stopped, and the old lady is now in the workhouse. That is only one case that has come under my observation in the past few days. If hon. Members were only made more directly acquainted with the poverty of many of the most deserving of our people I am sure there would not be so much difficulty about changing the law. At the beginning of my speech I referred to 20 men. They are at work to-day. There are out of work strong, able-bodied men who are walking the streets. From the economic point of view it would be far more desirable to let the old men take their well-earned rest and to allow the strong and able-bodied to take their places. From the point of view of political economy it would mean a great saving to the public purse. I support the Resolution and I hope the House will realise that the old people deserve better treatment. We do not want to wait until the dreamed-of time when everything will be flourishing.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I ventured a year ago in a Debate on this subject to trespass at some length on the time of the House, and I recall with gratitude the tolerance and courtesy which allowed me then to deal with certain aspects of this question in some detail, as I happened to have been called upon to preside over the Departmental Committee on Old Age Pensions. I promise the House I will not trespass on their time so long to-night, but I ask leave to say something on a matter which I venture to think is of high importance. I would like first of all to express the pleasure with which all Members of the House have heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Banton), whose clearness and sincerity and sense of the atmosphere of the House, if he will allow me to say so, commended themselves to the House. We have heard some remarkable speeches this evening, and the most remarkable was that of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson), who seconded the Amendment with so much intellectual fervour and such careful control of the avenues of sympathy of the human mind. I remember him well on this Committee. We are indebted to him for much acute criticism and for a good deal of clearness of thought and expression, but I cannot
reconcile my memory with his in some of the things he said, or in regard to the general view he took of the proceedings. If I remember rightly, other imperative duties prevented his attending there quite so frequently as was the doom, happy or unhappy, of the person who had to preside as Chairman of the proceedings, and if he had heard the whole of the evidence and had had the opportunity of weighing it—and no man could do it better—I doubt whether he would have come to the conclusion, conscientiously, as I know he must have done, that there was no proof then tendered of there being real grievances with regard to the present limit of old age pensions or that there was not evidence that the present limit was working unfairly and inequitably between individual and individual.
The case for universal old age pensions cannot be dismissed by merely saying, that it is a dream of the indefinite future, or that it rests on some wild-dream theory of popular or civic right. The case for universal old age pensions rests, as does the case for all social reforms, on what is best for the community as a whole. Inexpensive jests about hypothetical millionaires have very little in them beyond the amusement of the moment. They do not really touch the argument, which is that it is possible to conceive, and it is reasonable to consider, the problem of old age pensions as a problem dealing with that feature of human life which may come to anyone, which must come to everyone if life be prolonged, and which is not dependent for much of its character and incidence upon the greater or less resources of the individual. The real thought behind the Report of our Committee, and the thought which, I believe, underlies the arguments on this matter, is whether it is or is not desirable, in the interests of the State and of the community as a whole, that you should destroy for everyone the acuteness of the risk which lies in poverty at the extremity of life. There are millionaires to-day in the prime of life, but who knows they will be millionaires if they reach the age of 70? Who knows if those who to-day are poor are going to be rich or not? The principle of universal old age pensions is that you do give an appreciable added stability to the State if every member of the State knows that whatever may be his or her
fortune in the years ahead, there will be, at any rate, something which will save them from acute destitution, and which will be a nucleus around which their own efforts, the efforts of those who love them, and of their comrades in work or community of sentiment, can gather to make their last days happy, as it is good for the State they should be.
That is the way in which Members of this Committee, certainly the majority, and I believe some Members of the minority too, looked at this, not so much at the beginning of their inquiries as after they had spent weeks and months in taking every variety of evidence of the facts that bear on this matter. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), with that breezy tendency to dialectics which we all enjoy, treated this as though it were some casual emanation of the Labour party bent on propaganda with a mind to its philosophic or semi-philosophic basis. It is nothing of the kind. It is not a monopoly of any party or individual. The Committee that came to the conclusion that universal old age pensions were right was a Committee in which Members in any sense representing hon. Gentlemen opposite were a very small, if influential and helpful, minority. This is not a question which ought to be allowed to arouse the distinctions which exist among us in politics. It is one of those classes of social reform which I think we should jealously guard against being mixed up with controversy more than is inevitable. Why did we come to this conclusion?

Sir F. BANBURY: Votes!

Sir R. ADKINS: My right hon. Friend is so concentrated on the lower side of politics that he appears to think that other people, who have not the same opportunity of deterioration, have no other motives in their actions in this matter. We came to this conclusion, without looking forward to that conclusion at the beginning, because we found three great facts. First, that as old age pensions were then administered, and, while I warmly thank the Government for the improvements they have made, even as they are administered now, there is a great deal of unavoidable friction that ought to be avoided; second, because it is impossible to draw a line between one kind of resource and
another kind of resource, or even to draw a bold line of total income because the responsibilities of one old person may be much greater than the responsibilities of another, the health of one may be quite different from the health of another; the conditions of life, traditions, and habits which go to make mental and physical health, particularly in old age, vary so much. Therefore, we came to the conclusion, on the examination of the evidence, that you cannot draw any line with regard to income which would be equitable and fair, and not open to the most rightly destructive criticism of not working smoothly and in a way equally just to all parties. Thirdly, we came to the conclusion because we held that what may be called the short-cut or simple decision for universal pensions was on the whole best, for these among other reasons. It is not a case of giving money ostentatiously to people who do not want it. It is essential that everybody who contributes to the taxes—and we all contribute to taxes, some directly and some indirectly—should have this opportunity. Everybody in one way or another pays taxes, and therefore if everybody is to be eligible for an old age pension it merely means that those who have paid in taxes for the longest periods, do, as a matter of fact, get a small proportion returned to them at the very time when their power of earning money and their power even of enjoying life, is not what it was before. When you speak of the millionaire, the convenient stalking horse of this Debate, remember that if the millionaire is to get his old age pension he will have to return in present circumstances a great deal more than half of it in taxation of one kind or another. I venture to adopt one of the sentences in the Report of the Committee:
The benefits to the country of removing, by universal pensions, hindrances to thrift and industry and provision, public or private, for the aged, cannot be measured in precise figures, but in our view it is of the greatest importance, and if, to secure this, and remove admitted anomalies, there is involved a grant of pensions to a certain number of people who have not contributed to them, it is a small price to pay for the advantages thereby obtained.
I hope the House will see its way, in one form or another, to approve and endorse that deliberate judgment. I hope the House will not be led away by the dexterous method of advocacy which the hon. and learned Member for West Edin-
burgh (Mr. Jameson) indulged in with some gusto towards the end of his speech. It was much more important, he said, to lower the age, and much more important to increase the amount, than to make pensions of 10s. a week apply to all over 70 years of age. What becomes of his careful and adroit expressions of economy? The moment we talk about raising the amount we embark on a sea of expenditure compared with which the proposal before the House is as nothing, and the moment we consider lowering the age we come in contact with all kinds of questions of national insurance, and enter upon one of the most subtle and complicated inquiries which could possibly take place. It is a well-known argument to suggest that a thing is wrong because other things, well known to be impracticable, would be preferable. The issue is, will this House or will it not endorse the principle of universal old age pensions?

Sir F. BANBURY: I hope not.

Sir R. ADKINS: Of course, my right hon. Friend hopes it will not, but I have yet to learn of this House, in matters of social reform, taking its cue from the right hon. Baronet. Of course, it is impossible to detach this issue entirely from the question of immediate accomplishment and the question of present conditions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers), who, I think, has done a public service in bringing this matter up, has drafted a Resolution which does not, in so many words, ask for immediate realisation, but which perhaps, it may be argued, is open to two constructions. For my part I realise as I am sure the hon. Member for Spen Valley realises, how extremely difficult it would be for any Chancellor of the Exchequer, at this moment, to bring this most desirable reform into immediate operation. It is not a matter of £15,000,000. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Edinburgh, in a moment of financial exaggeration, out of keeping with his race, said it was, but it is only £9,000,000 according to our calculations. We know, however, that the financial position of the country is very serious. I often recollect the famous saying attributed to Windham in the middle of the French revolution, when he was asked about Parliamentary reform:
You cannot re-arrange the furniture in your house when your house itself is on fire.
It may well happen that the country may at one particular time be in such financial straits that it cannot carry out a reform right and desirable and in its nature pressing, but what I am anxious about is to obtain from the House—and for this reason I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and do all I can as long as I am a Member of this House to push this Measure forward—is the deliberate assent to and confirmation by the House of the principle of universal old age pensions. When that is done the further question of whether it can be done immediately still remains, but though of the greatest importance it is subsidiary to the principle. I hope the House will take the view that this is one of those Measures which it is incumbent on this or any Government to bring about as soon as national finance can possibly admit of it. We are all familiar with great reforms which never came about in actual practice on the first occasion when their principle was endorsed by the legislature, but the first step to getting reforms is to be sure that the House of Commons believes in them and that Members of the House of Commons are earnest in trying to bring them about.
I apologise to the House for speaking so long, but I admit that my feelings are engaged in this matter. I can never forget the effect upon my mind of the evidence of witness after witness at the Committee. We are all liable to error, and no one more than I, but I feel confident that if we abolish the regulations and the restrictions we really facilitate instead of hindering benevolence and thrift. There is no suggestion that pension officers are themselves cruel or unkind or tactless, but pensions officers have a duty to look for and discover, if it exists, any irregularity. The mind is apt to see what it looks for, but there is no comparison, and I do not think the House of Commons will think there is a comparison as between the Income Tax payer who has to fill up certain forms often irritating, occasionally misleading, now and then unfair, but which can be answered and in regard to which nearly every Income Tax payer can obtain advice—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: No.

Sir R. ADKINS: No doubt my hon. Friend's returns are complicated by the variety of his income. I hope the House
will not judge this great question entirely by the perverted dexterity of my hon. Friend. There is however no comparison between the duty, tiresome though it may be, of filling up Income Tax returns and the embarrassment and anxiety that comes to aged and perhaps decrepit persons by a lawful question asked by perfectly courteous officials, but which brings terror into the needed calm of the evening of their lives. Therefore it is, on all those grounds, that I hope the House will support my hon. Friend in his Motion, it being perfectly clear that that Motion cannot immediately fructify in the present state of the country, but that the assertion and the reassertion of that principle are steps indispensable to the realisation of a great reform which I am confident will not only be for the good of the aged, but will tend to the permanent stability of the nation.

Mr. C. WHITE: May I also, following the example of the hon. and learned Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins), extend my little tribute to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Banton) on his maiden speech, showing the intense human sympathy which he has with those who need that sympathy most. The Labour party has come in for the usual lecture from the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I am not a member of the Labour party—I am an uncompromising Radical—but I am always pleased to be with them, and have been with them ever since I have been in this House, when they have brought forward such Measures as this. I am going to speak very largely from the human standpoint, and not from the highly technical standpoint that has been advanced by some of the previous speakers, and I know this, that if this House passes this Motion to-night, the money can be found. It has been found for very much less desirable objects than this. I want also to speak, not from the standpoint of a theorist, but from the standpoint of a man who is personally acquainted with hundreds of old age pensioners in the district in which I live. The hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) said there are very few people ashamed to accept benefits from the State. I agree with him. I know a good many Noble Lords who are not ashamed to take benefits from the State; they were taking them
long before the old age pensioner had his 5s. a week, and they are still taking them, as we have heard in answer to questions that have been asked in this House not very long ago.
The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) expressed that sympathy which he is always able to express so profoundly in cases such as these, but might I remind him that that sort of sympathy is a very poor thing for breakfast, and he would find that out if he were unfortunate enough to be an old age pensioner himself. He said this is a most unfortunate time to bring this Motion forward, but I venture to say there could not be a fortunate time for him to agree that it was the exact time to bring such a Motion forward. I have never heard either him or the Seconder of the Amendment protest against extravagance or unnecessary expenditure when it has been proposed by the Government of which they are both such ardent supporters, but he knows very little of the human side of this question. He knows nothing of the suffering, or very little, nothing of the hardship and struggles of these old people in the evening of their days. He knows little of the inquisitorial methods—and I am not blaming the pension officers in this—that are adopted to find out the means of these poor old people. The pension officers are bound by Regulations which they must follow. In regard to his reference to the friendly societies, that it would be an advantage to the friendly societies to refuse this Motion, does he not know—if he does not, he is the only Member who does not know—that the friendly societies are the greatest supporters and advocates of the extension of the pension without any regard to the means of the recipient? The Mover of the Amendment accused my hon. Friend of being a superior statesman, saying that he had no constructive proposal. I know it was said in an ironical manner. We are just as much in favour of economy as either the Mover or Seconder of the Amendment, but we are not in favour of economy when it affects the very lives of the old people of this country and the children of this country, and I am proud to be associated with the people who advocate that view in this House.
I want to support the Motion very heartily, and as we are governed by majorities even in this House—we saw that automatic majority going into the Lobby with the Government last night—so we are governed, or ought to be governed, or at least actuated or animated, very largely by the majority of this Departmental Committee. I have just been looking at the names. Under the chairmanship of the hon. and learned Member for Middleton we had some of the most eminent men in the country sitting on that Committee, and this is what they say:
We have therefore been irresistibly forced to advocate that the means limit should be abolished altogether, and that the old age pension be given to all citizens at the age of 70. We are of opinion that no other course will remove the very serious objections to the present system.
We are asked where the money is to come from. That Committee, composed of very much more able men than myself, said this:
The question whether the country can afford this additional cost is rather for your Lordships than for us to determine, and we bear that in mind in making this recommendation. Our duty, as we conceive it, is to recommend what we believe to be the best system, and while we have regard to finance, it is not for us to consider our problem predominantly from the financial standpoint.
That is the opinion of the eminent Committee which sat to consider this great question. May I diverge for a moment? Like the Mover of the Motion, I have been chairman of a very large pensions committee in Derbyshire since 1908, when the Act was passed, and I want to say that here is an initial difficulty that has not bean mentioned to-night, and that is that the pension officer is responsible to the Inland Revenue, but the pension committees are responsible to the Ministry of Health. There is a difficulty that ought to be removed at once. I know that in my own district the pension officer can, and very often does, refuse to come to the pension committees, and says that he is not responsible to them but to his own Department, and so, whatever happens as a result of this Motion, I hope there will be no dual authority or dual administration in this matter.
Here is another difficulty. I am afraid the committee, like a good many Members of this House, are merely registering machines for the pension officer. If a
committee refuses to accept his decisions—and his decisions are not always the right ones—he appeals against the committee. He is not answerable to the pensions committee at all. I am egotistical enough to say that in my own district applicants are examined by one or other of the members of the pensions committee of which I am chairman, and there would be less hardship if all pension committees would do their duty in that respect. Here is another injustice of the Act of 1919, and only those who are acquainted with the working of this Act know the difficulty which arises here. It is not even mentioned. It was not mentioned before the Departmental Committee. It is with regard to graduation. Under the Acts of 1908 and 1911, the scale of income and pension was graded by 1s. a week. Thus, a pensioner with an income of 8s. a week received his full pension at that time of 5s. If the income exceeded 8s. by 1s. a week, making it 9s., the pension was reduced accordingly by 1s. to 4s. a week, and so on down the scale. The graduated scale under the Act of 1919 does not provide at all for a graduated scale of 1s. a week. If a pensioner has an income not exceeding £26 5s. a year, he gets his full pension of 10s. a week, but if he exceeds that by 1d., he does not get his pension reduced by 1s. a week, but by 2s. a week. Therefore, there is an injustice that certainly ought to be remedied. It ought to be graduated by 1s. a week. As I say, If he has an income of £26 5s. 1d. a year, the 1d. does it. He gets 8s. a week pension, while a man with an income of £31 10s. gets the same pension of 8s. a week. It is a matter into which, I think, the authorities would do well to inquire, although I am perfectly certain that some genius with £1,000 a year was clever enough to find out that it would save money to deprive the old age pensioner of 1s. a week.
10.0 P.M.
That is not perhaps, the main question here to-night. This reckoning of the amount received from friendly societies, pension in respect of loss of a son, and help from children as part of the income, surely must finally cease. This can only be done, as was admirably explained by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, by abolishing the means' qualification altogether. Hon, Members are not all quite so conversant as some of us with the working of this Act. Even if rates
are excused on the ground of poverty, that is all reckoned against the excused person as part of income. If he has sown a few vegetables, not in his allotment, but in his little garden attached to his cottage, it is all reckoned against him as part of his income. If there is a loaf of bread taken by the daughter in the village, a bit of coal, a bit of tea, a bit of sugar, or a little help from children in money, or kind, it is all reckoned against the old age pensioner, or applicant for an old age pension, as part of income. If the old man or woman has to go to live with a son or daughter, everything they eat, the value of the lodging, is counted against them as part of their income. Let me give a concrete instance. It came under my own notice before my own Committee only a few months ago. A Hampshire farm labourer, who never in his life received above 14s. a week, during the War fell ill. His wife died, his little home had to be given up, and he lived as long as he could by selling the furniture that was in it. He then went to Derbyshire, where his daughter was living. She said, "You can come to live with me if you apply for the old age pension." He applied, and the pension officer went to see the man's circumstances. I know the circumstances, because I investigated the ease personally, so that I might bring it before the Minister. The man was sleeping in a little box room. The pension officer inquired as to the sort of food he had. Sometimes he had an egg for breakfast—fancy an old age pensioner having an egg for breakfast!—sometimes a little meat for dinner, and the pension officer found that the standard of living he was enjoying was too high for him to recommend him for a pension at all, and so he decided that no recommendation should be made for a pension. The committee of which I am chairman refused to accept his decision, and gave 10s. a week. The pension officer appealed against our decision, and I went and examined the whole circumstances, saw the bed in which the man slept, and the food he ate, and inquired the income of the house. Eventually the Minister would not accept the decision of the pension officer, but accepted the decision of the committee of which I am chairman.
Here is another case, and I cannot do better than give you these cases, because
hon. Members who talk about this have a very vague idea, or no idea at all, as to how this works. Here is an old man and an old woman, whom I know well, who lost their only son in the War. Brokenhearted and broken in health, they had to sell up their home. The mother went to live with her daughter, and the father with his old brother. The mother had a small pension for the loss of the son, and the father had a small pension from his employer and a small amount from a friendly society. The old man, out of his scanty income, used to send his wife 4s. a week to help the daughter keep her. The pension officer comes along and says: "Your income is too much to allow me to recommend the full pension." He goes to the wife, and he reckons her income, adding to it the 4s. a week which has already been reckoned as part of the husband's income. Of course, we get over it by a little bit of sharp practice, but I submit we were entitled to use a little bit of sharp practice in this respect. These are pitiful cases. I could give hundreds of cases such as these, and I am not exaggerating. Yet we are told to argue this purely from a financial standpoint, though these poor old men and women, in the evening of their days, have rendered as much service to the State, comparatively, with their opportunities, as many of the men who are now receiving their thousands a year in pension.
Questions have been asked in this House lately as to the amount paid in pensions to judges, ex-Lord Chancellors, ex-Cabinet Ministers, and as to a perpetual pension to a Noble Lord. Have they to make any declaration as to their means? In my younger days I used to go on race courses, and I remember seeing one of these Noble Lords on a race course when he was receiving much over a thousand a year in this way. If you saw an old age pensioner on a race course, you would disqualify him from a pension. I know we shall be met by the old cry—that the financial position of the country will not allow it. If we had another war, we should soon find money to conduct that. Money is found to-day for much less desirable objects than bringing a little more comfort into the homes of these old people in the evening of their days. Last year we narrowly escaped having a free vote of the House. I appeal to the Leader of the House or the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to let us have a free vote of the House to-night, and I am sure that if the party Whips are not put on, this Motion of my hon. Friend will be carried by the overwhelming majority which it deserves.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I will not follow the hon. Member who has just sat down further than to say I am sure the House is not so ignorant of the injustices to men and women who seek old age pensions as he would imagine. Everybody who has been an employer of labour, or has been brought into contact with labour, is aware of innumerable instances of hardship where the border line between means and the right to obtain an old age pension is very fine. The House listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins). The House always listens with deep interest to anyone who knows his subject, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is in a position to speak on this subject with probably more authority than anybody in the House. But it struck me that at the end of his speech he treated this question rather as an academic one than as a matter of practical politics. He said no party ought to claim a monopoly of desire for social reform, and I agree with him there. I disagree with some of my Friends who think this hardy annual is of necessity an electioneering device. I do not think it is. Once you admit the principle of non-contributory old age pensions, it is very difficult to draw the line, and it is very difficult to refuse the pension to those who, by their thrift and industry, have managed to save up something for old age.
I was struck by the speech of the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) on the Civil Service expenditure this afternoon, when he said the Labour party did not approve of doles or of relief. It seems to me this proposal comes under the category of relief or doles, and I have noticed that on almost every occasion when money is asked for the relief of what are no doubt deserving causes, the Members of the Labour party ask for more than has been offered by the Government. It is a commonplace to say that at this moment our national finances are in a precarious condition, and we ought to be quite sure when money is expended that it is spent in the wisest direction. If we have got £9,000,000,
which, I understand, is what would be required for this purpose, we have to be quite certain that it would be spent to the best possible advantage, and that we should not be doing more harm than good by raising this money from taxation, which ultimately reacts on the very people we are anxious to assist, and to that extent diminishes their ability to provide for their old age by thrift. I wonder whether even Members of the Labour party, and others who support the Motion, are quite satisfied, having regard to the interest of the health and the well-being of the masses, that this is the most deserving object which could have been chosen for the expenditure of this money. If Members were asked what they consider the most deserving case, I should be surprised if the majority here favoured the grant of assistance to those who in the majority of cases are not in immediate want. For these reasons, while I fully appreciate the necessity for encouraging thrift and the difficulties and hardships which many people are under, I cannot help thinking we may be doing more harm than good unless we treat this Measure as a purely academic one, not to be put into immediate operation; for however deserving the case may be, we cannot put fresh burdens on the Exchequer. I shall support the Amendment.

Mr. G. BARNES: May I first associate myself with those who have already, congratulated my old Friend the new Member for East Leicester (Mr. Banton) on the speech he made to-night, which was one of great promise. In the second place, I can also bear my testimony to the great kindness, consideration and sympathy of old age pension officers. I used to see a great deal of those officers, and I believe that if they could find within the Regulations by which they are bound the means of giving an old age pension they would gladly do it. I have so much sympathy with those officers, however, that I should like to relieve them of a very unpleasant duty, a duty which, although it sometimes brings the old age pension ultimately, involves at the best a long delay after the pension has been applied for. I want to associate myself with the Motion, and I do so because it expresses the idea with which I endeavoured to familiarise the country 20 years ago, and which I commended to this House 17 years ago. I have been here 17 years and have heard
no argument to beat the argument in favour of a pension as a civil right. Some ridicule has been thrown on it by one hon. Member; but I still adhere to my opinion that the best way of dealing with this problem is not by niggling investigations into the incomes of poor old men and women of 70 years of age, but by adopting the principle of giving the pension to all, on the assumption they have contributed to the wealth and welfare of the community during their life. I should have liked to see this Debate limited to the principle of the thing. I should have liked to see my hon. Friend who moved this Motion stopping at the word "accordingly." The Motion does express to that point admirably the principle that we want—that I want—to see adopted. It says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the recommendation of the departmental committee on old age pensions in favour of the repeal of the provisions in the Old Age Pensions Acts as to calculation of means should be adopted, and the Old Age Pensions Acts amended accordingly.
That is a principle I should like to see this House accept, and leave the discussion of the details till afterwards. I commend to this House, as I have commended for so many times before, the idea of giving a pension as a civil right just the same as you give elementary education to the children of the man, although it may be that he is a millionaire. One or two hon. Members opposite have said that the millionaire would take the ten shillings. I do not for a single moment believe that he would take it. He has a right to do so, because he has contributed during his life to the pool whence the pension is drawn. That is a simple elementary principle. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) surely would not fall out with the principle that you are bound to do something for a man or woman in their old age. The only question is as to how that obligation is to be discharged. There are many of us who think, rightly or wrongly, that unless the pension is given to everybody, just the same as the right to elementary school teaching is given to every child, and unless it be embodied in the Old Age Pensions Act, there will always be the man or woman who feels that in accepting the pension under these circumstances they are accepting something to which there is attached something in the nature of a social stigma.
I have dealt with a single statement or a principle. There is, however, a great deal to be said about the ill-effects of the present system upon the man or woman who desire to save. Members of trade unions and friendly societies should be entitled—would be entitled on my principle—to a pension, notwithstanding the receipt of four or five shillings a week or even ten shillings in their old age from the friendly society or the trade union. They have a right to have it, for their other benefits has nothing at all to do with the State. They have paid for it, and paid for it in the best of all possible ways, by pooling their savings with other people's savings. I do not think that ought to be taken into account. I shall be glad to vote with hon. Members if this matter goes to a Division. I want to, as a last word, remind the House that we are now discussing the principle upon which old age pensions shall be given. We leave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it is passed, to give effect to it, to find the money in due time—we do not ask him to do it next week—we simply want the House to affirm the principle that the man and woman who have served their country and contributed to its wealth and welfare during their time of health and strength should get something in their old age with no stigma of pauperism to it, but as a civil right.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in the tribute he has paid to certain officials engaged in the administration of the old age pension. I know they have had a most difficult task to perform, and one in which very few of us would envy them in having to carry out. I am certain from what I have seen that they have always endeavoured to do their duty, and have generally given the benefit of the doubt to the pensioner. When I first had my attention called to this particular proposition which we have before us tonight, I thought that in a time like the present with high prices, the high cost of living, and high burdens on almost everyone, we ought certainly to endeavour to see if we could possibly support the Amendment. I certainly welcome the fact that the Socialist party have, at any rate, taken the trouble to put down a Motion of this particular kind.
The second point which came to my mind was the fact that this particular Resolution was recommended by the Departmental Committee. When I came into this House some three and a-half years ago, possibly not knowing a great deal about Government administration and things of that kind, I believed that a Departmental Committee or a Royal Commission, or any of those curious methods used for inquiry into a question, were composed of very wise men who were bound to be right. We have had the Sankey Commission and other Committees of Inquiry, but the curious part is that when ever they are appointed we are told how wonderful they are, but they always seem to report on the assumption that the taxpayer and his interests must never be considered, and they always look at the case entirely from the point of view of what they would like to do, and they leave it there, and they never try to balance it with the effect which their recommendations would have.
In regard to this particular Motion, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friends of the Socialist party on the fact that at last they have discovered that thrift and provision for old age is a good thing. It has taken them many years and generations to discover that, but it is something to have got them to have put it down now in the form of a Motion. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Co-operative movement?"] That subject is not relevant to this discussion, but the Co-operative movement was not started by Socialists, but by good Conservatives. Personally, I have spent a considerable amount of time recommending co-operation, but that subject is not relevant to-night. I was surprised and amazed to hear the right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. G. Barnes), whom I respect very sincerely, saying that he would like the tail of this proposal to be cut out. I maintain that it is the best part of the Motion, and I think they should carry it a little further instead of actually attacking thrift as they generally do. [An HON. MEMBER: "We never do."] I would advise the hon. Gentleman to read up the Socialist programmes if he is still under that delusion.
After all, these very people whom you most wish to help by this Resolution are the people who will be hit worse every time by the recommendations of
the Socialists on my right. Their capital levy, and its ultimate effect, whether he pays it or not, is going to hit the small man. It is going to destroy automatically a very large proportion of what he has saved. If I may recommend hon. Members to follow up this first lesson which they have learned on thrift, I would suggest to them they should not forget that one of the best things that happened during the War was that a very large number of the working people of this country contributed to the War Loans in one way or another, and I say that the recommendation which many of my hon. Friends are continually thrusting down our throats, and particularly down the throat of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we should cut down the interest on the War Loan—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remain firm in rejecting that—is one which will also hit hard these very people whom they profess to be out to help. Surely it is not a good thing to attack thrift on the one hand, and then on the other hand, by means of a Resolution which may never come to very much, suggest they would encourage it.
I want to know, in the first place, if you are going to extract at this moment any sum from £9,000,000 to £12,000,000 from the taxpayers' pockets, how many people it is going to throw out of work directly and indirectly? We all have sympathy with the, old age pensioner, and it is quite possible that hon. Members on the Labour Benches who ironically cheer that statement do not realise that very many of us have as much, and even more, to do with paying the pension and looking after these old people than they themselves have. They might remember that, for I know a large number of Members of this House who undertake that kind of work. I would like to bring before the Chancellor of the Exchequer this point. If he is called upon to exact the additional taxation which will be necessary to cover this expenditure, it is bound to add additional pressure to a trade already over-burdened and to an industry struggling hard to exist, and the effect will be, not to improve the general condition of our people, but to throw more men on the labour market, to depress wages, and to put more people out of employment. I think we ought to consider that seriously before we go blind-headed into the Division Lobby to
vote for this Resolution. I should like to emphasise this further point. At the present time we are hoping to re-establish the prosperity of our country, and we ought not to add to our present burden however much we may wish to help these old people. Of course, many of us would like to see their positions bettered, but the fact remains that if you are granting an old age pension at all, it should be granted to everyone. There can be no justification for granting it to a man who has never done anything, or has possibly spent his time in very doubtful circumstances, while, on the other hand, you refuse it to the man who has devoted the best of his life to work, and has never been out of work for a single week, as is the case with many agricultural labourers. Although you cannot argue, on the merits of the case, against this proposal, yet, if you go into its actual working at the present time, you will find that the time is absolutely unsuitable, and that it would actually do more injury to the poorer classes of this country than will be done if you reject it.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): I had thought that everything that it was possible to say on this topic had already been urged in the Debate which we had in the course of last year, but I am free to confess that the Debate which we have had to-day has been a very illuminating and interesting one, and has added many considerations to this problem which previously had been left out of account. We have had a series of very interesting speeches, and, along with others, I should like to welcome to the Debates of this House the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Banton), who made his maiden speech to-night, and to whom I listened with great interest and considerable admiration. Everyone knows what the difficulties of a maiden speech are, and I am sure that anyone who listened to the hon. Member would agree that he made a distinct contribution to this discussion, and that he has given promise for the future which induces us all the-more heartily to welcome him amongst us to-night.
This Motion is one which involves a large expenditure. Various figures, not all of them quite accurate, have been given. The amount which would be added to our annual expenditure, if this Motion
were adopted, would be £15,000,000. It would increase the present cost of Old Age Pensions from £26,000,000 to £41,000,000; and it really is idle to say that we are debating to-night a question of principle. In point of fact, the Motion makes it plain that this is a principle which is intended to be carried into practice, and, if the speeches of my hon. Friends opposite mean anything, they certainly indicate that there is an urgent case for reform which must be dealt with at once. I am, therefore, prepared to deal with it on that footing.
I confess, however, to a feeling of great disappointment. It would be supposed, by anyone who has listened to recent Debates in this House, that I had been carefully educated in the doctrines of economy by some of the more distinguished Members who sit opposite. We were told only the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) that he at one time was a voice crying in the wilderness on the subject of economy. He told us only last week that we must treat economy as a real thing, and not as a sham; that we must resist organised public opinion that sought to induce the House to embark upon new expenditures, and that, no matter at what cost in the way of popular favour, we must take our stand in this House in favour of resistance to all expenditure. Where is my right hon. Friend now? I look in vain to the opposite bench for the support to which I think I ought to be entitled. And my eye travels below the Gangway, but there is no appearance of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), who for a very considerable time now has been denouncing the Government in most extravagant terms for its wasteful expenditure, and who, even this afternoon, has been busily engaged upon that task. And the Anti-Waste party—where is the Anti-Waste party? In fact to-day has produced something like a microcosm of the attitude of this House towards questions of expenditure. It spent the whole afternoon denouncing the Government because of its supposed extravagances, and the whole evening in urging the Government to spend another £15,000,000 a year. I propose to adopt the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and to treat economy
as a reality and as something more than a sham. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) in his place and I look with great confidence to his support in the Lobby.

Sir F. BANBURY: All economists will support you in the Lobby.

Sir R. HORNE: Let me deal with the situation as we find it. Last year the House rejected a similar Motion to this upon the ground, not that they were unsympathetic to the idea, as I think most of the speeches were in the direction of expressing a great desire to do whatever was possible to alleviate the hard lot that overtook many of our old people when age made it impossible for them any longer to earn a livelihood, but because they could not see how the country was to meet the expenditure involved in the proposal. Is our situation better now than it was last year? On the contrary, it is much worse. Last year we had a return of Income Tax based upon an average of three good years. In the current year, upon which we have only recently entered, we have to calculate on a much reduced yield from Income Tax, because of the depressed year through which we have passed. Last year we had a very considerable revenue from miscellaneous receipts and the sale of war stores. This year we have to look forward to a very narrow margin of excess of receipts over expenditure in connection with the clearing up of war material, and on the expenditure side, in the present year we have to find an extra sum of £25,000,000 in order to pay interest upon our debt to the United States. Is it to be supposed that if last year we were unable to find any possibility of meeting such an expenditure as this we are in any better ease in looking forward to the conditions of the future?
But that is only a half of the problem. It is not any good embarking upon expenditure of this kind unless you can afford to maintain it in the succeeding year. The year 1923–24 is going to confront us with far more serious financial problems than even the year 1922–23. The revenue to be obtained from Income Tax then will have two bad years in the three upon which the average will be based instead of one. Miscellaneous receipts, so far as they are of a special kind, we may anticipate will have disappeared alto-
gether, and instead of £25,000,000 interest on our debt to the United States we shall have to find £50,000,000. It seems to me that it is sufficient for my purpose in dealing with this immediate problem to put these grave figures before the House, and to ask whether, under these circumstances, it is possible to embark upon a further expenditure of £15,000,000, even upon a most laudable object.
It stares one in the face that a considerable part of this £15,000,000 is to go to people who do not deserve it, and do not require it. I understand the case that is put forward for the deserving poor, for the people who are in need, whose meagre support has to be supplemented by such assistance as the State can in these circumstances give; but I cannot, in the position in which we find ourselves, understand a proposition which asks us, at a time when our resources are strained to the uttermost, to make expenditure upon people who do not require it, and do not want it. I understand the anomalies to which reference has been made, and I appreciate the great difficulties which arise in connection with them; it certainly appears on the face of it somewhat illogical that because people have saved a little, have been thrifty, and put something by, therefore they should be denied that which a man gets who has paid no attention to his future. I admit that this is a bad principle in itself, but I do not think that it largely affects the industrious character of our people. Testimony was given before the Committee that dealt with this matter to the effect that nobody connected with trade unions or friendly societies was less eager to be thrifty on account of the fact that he had a chance of getting an old age pension if he lived to be 70. After all, it is a very remote prospect for most people, and the amount to be got is not so large as to destroy thrift when a person is really anxious to exercise it. So while I think that the principle is not a good one, nevertheless, I think that its detrimental results have been greatly exaggerated.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins), who is an enthusiast upon this subject and deserves the greatest praise from this House for the assiduity and zeal with which he has dealt with this problem, both as Chairman of the Committee and
in the speeches which he has made in this House, has advocated this reform on the ground of principle unconnected with need, and he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals Division (Mr. Barnes) have alone really addressed themselves to the Resolution. All the other speeches to which I have listened in favour of the Motion have really been directed to the hard cases of the needy. The speeches from behind me, on the other hand, were really based on some sort of idea of civic right which would entitle a man to a pension by his mere survival to the age of 70. Frankly that is, whether right or wrong, an entirely different idea from that upon which the old age pension system was founded. I looked up the Report of the Committee when I heard my hon. and learned Friend speak upon the subject and it states that the existing system was framed on the view that the claim to a pension rests on necessity and not on right.

Sir R. ADKINS: Perhaps my right hon. Friend would read the rest of the sentence which will modify it.

Sir R. HORNE: The Report says:
The criticism under the first head really touches the root principle upon which old age pensions are granted. We have already dealt with this question in paragraph 10, and have indicated that the existing system was framed on the view that the claim to a pension rested on necessity and not on right. So long as a means' limit is imposed, the grant must retain the character of almsgiving.

Sir R. ADKINS: When we were dealing directly with that point, what we said was that pensions were originally granted more with a view to need than by right, but most carefully leaving open the question as not being definitely settled.

Sir R. HORNE: I read the paragraph with care. While I agree that it is less definitely expressed than in the paragraph I have read, that comes later in the Report and presumably expresses the Committee's own view on the topic. I do not think the matter admits of doubt. Can anyone believe that if there had been no one over the age of 70 in a state of need the old age pension scheme would ever have been brought forward? If we had had a community of people with £500 a year and upwards, would anyone have proposed the pension scheme? The scheme is based on necessity, and not on right.
I do not presume to pronounce upon the question whether that is a sound principle or not. All I say is that if you are now to claim that the system shall be based upon some theory of civic right to obtain a pension by mere survival to the age of 70, it is an entire alteration of the principle, and deserves far more consideration than can be given to it to-night.
I would remind the House that this Government and this House have not been unsympathetic to the old age pensioner. Hon. Members opposite seem to take my remarks derisively. It is not more than about 18 months ago, in December, 1919, that we increased the pensions from 7s. 6d. to 10s. at a cost of £10,000,000 a year to the State.

Mr. MILLS: What was the cost of living then?

Sir R. HORNE: That interruption has pointed my remark. We made that change in the pension when the cost of living was 126 per cent. above the pre-War level. Now the cost of living is only 86 per cent. above the pre-War level. Accordingly, whatever justification existed then for increasing the pension, nothing can be suggested now which should induce us to do something more.

Mr. MILLS: What about house rents?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dartford is making it far too much a custom to try to make speeches while sitting down.

Sir R. HORNE: At the same time, we increased the number of people who became beneficiaries by 120,000. We raised the limit at which the person was entitled to a full pension from £21 10s. to £26 5s., and we raised the limit of people who were entitled to get any benefit at all from £31 10s. to £49 17s. 6d. We did all that under the counsel and guidance of my hon. and learned Friend who was Chairman of the Committee. Those were great alterations for the benefit of the old age pensioners. Therefore, I repeat that it cannot be said that this Government or this House has looked unsympathetically upon the claims of the old age pensioners. But we are now in a situation of great financial difficulty, and whatever, under other circumstances, it might be right to do, it is not pos-
sible to-day to add to the burden of the taxpayer without inflicting a grievous blow upon industry. There is nothing to-day so fruitful a cause of unemployment as the very heavy burden of taxation. Is the House prepared to face the burden of taxation which is involved in such an extra sum added to our yearly expenditure as £15,000,000? I regret an expression which fell from the Mover of the Motion. He seemed to think that we ought to be able to find the money for such a purpose as this by still further cutting down the defence forces of the country. He said that expenditure upon them was wicked. That was the expression he used. Was expenditure upon the Navy and Army wicked prior to 1914? I venture to suggest to the House that, but for the expenditure upon the Navy and Army prior to 1914, there would have been nothing for the old age pensioners now. In all the circumstances in which we find ourselves, without prejudging this question, I venture to give my support to the Amendment, which seems to be to express most fittingly the attitude which this House ought to take on this matter at the present time.

Mr. S. WALSH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have listened to this Debate with very great interest, and the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have converted me to the view that I must vote for the Amendment. I think there is no sadder spectacle in the world than a poor, poor old man or a poor, poor old woman, and there is no one to whom the sympathies of all mankind go out more. I listened in vain, however, for any constructive proposal as to how to get out of the financial difficulty. I wish that when the scheme of Old Age Pensions was inaugurated the policy enunciated by Canon Bladsley, I think it was, had been adopted. He pointed out that there was a time in every young man's life when he had more money than was good for him, and that was the period when he had just become a journeyman and before he entered into matrimony. He had all his income and wages to himself, and got into habits of spending which he found it difficult to break when
he had assumed greater responsibilities. He suggested that every young man should have a levy imposed on him to meet pension and sickness. If something of that kind had been adopted at the time Canon Bladsley proposed it, I believe the whole difficulty would have been solved long ago.
If I had heard some proposal from the Labour party to cut down expenditure in some other form to meet this I would have called that constructive. I have a proposal to make, which I know will meet with their hearty enthusiasm, as to a way in which part of this money could be supplied. We have a very well-paid Civil Service who ought to provide for their own old age as the rest of us have to do, and take the cost out of the income they receive. Instead of that they retire at the comparatively early age of 60 or 65 with three years' salary in their pockets, and two-thirds of their salaries as pension. Then we have the school teachers, who, up to the time of the 1918 scheme, used to contribute to their own pensions out of their then very meagre salaries. They now also retire on a Civil Service basis with a very largo sum of money in their hands and large pensions which is exciting wild indignation in many parts of Scotland. There is money on which the Labour party can lay their hands for money for old age pensions. There is a practical proposal. I have found some money that ought to make the tender hearts of the Labour party melt for the old age pensioner. There is a chance for the Labour party. Let them take that up and have a little more equality and more sympathy for the old age pensioner who has worked all his life just as hard as the teacher or the civil servant. You will get a better teacher and a better civil servant in consequence. It must be remembered that on account of accruing pension you cannot sack a civil servant. Similarly the school teacher is like the laws of the Medes and Persians, and cannot be altered. If we had teachers without pensions it might be an improvement. That is what we want to improve the status and tone of both these occupations, instead of giving those who follow them,

the lotus-eating idea, that while still in the prime of life they can go to a golf links and enjoy themselves for the remainder of the natural term of their days.

After all, neither of these classes are even unemployed. They are never out of work, though they are said not to work very hard. Lord Palmerston said that the clerks in the War Office were like the fountains in Trafalgar Square—they played from 10 to 4. They certainly are not over-wrought and they are never out of work; they never lose their situations if they keep moderately sober and do not find themselves in the Divorce or Criminal Courts. Yet the Labour party come here and appeal for the unemployed, for the toil-worn craftsman, for the miner, who is down to a 1d. a week and all that sort of thing, while they insist on giving large sums of public money to people whose incomes are large enough to make provision for themselves, as we all have to do. Instead of coming here with a constructive proposal, they come and ask for more money. I have no sympathy with that, non-constructive way of dealing with the matter. I believe our sympathy should rather be with those who are thrifty. I wish we could have a universal old age pension. I would like to see it and it is perfectly logical. The Income Tax payers have been mentioned. If we had an Income Tax system such as they have in Holland it would be better. There a man only pays Income Tax on the money he spends and not on the money he saves. That is the system which we ought to go upon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I do not wish to detain the House, but some interesting figures have been put into my hand—

Mr. S. WALSH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is ready to come to a decision.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 161.

Division No. 75.]
AYES.
[11.2 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Banton, George
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)


Amnion, Charles George
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Barrand, A. R.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hartshorn, Vernon
Robertson, John


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Rodger, A. K.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayward, Evan
Rose, Frank H.


Cairns, John
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Seddon, J. A.


Cape, Thomas
Hinds, John
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Casey, T. W.
Irving, Dan
Sitch, Charles H.


Clough, Sir Robert
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnstone, Joseph
Stanton, Charles Butt


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutton, John Edward


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Swan, J. E.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kennedy, Thomas
Taylor, J.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon, James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wallace, J.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Finney, Samuel
Matthews, David
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac
Mills, John Edmund
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Forrest, Walter
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Waterson, A. E.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Galbraith, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gillis, William
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Rae, H. Norman
Wintringham, Margaret


Grundy, T. W.
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Rondall, Atheistan
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Halls, Walter
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)



Hancock, John George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. W. Smith.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fell, Sir Arthur
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Macquisten, F. A.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Manville, Edward


Atkey, A. R.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Middlebrook, Sir William


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gange, E. Stanley
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Gould, James C.
Morrison, Hugh


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Nall, Major Joseph


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Neal, Arthur


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Blane, T. A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Hailwood, Augustine
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parker, James


Brown, Major D. C.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Haslam, Lewis
Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butcher, Sir John George
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Perkins, Walter Frank


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hobler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Carr, W. Theodore
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Carter, R. A. D. (Man. Withington)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Renwick, Sir George


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jameson, John Gordon
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Seager, Sir William


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lloyd, George Butler
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Ednam, Viscount
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Elveden, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sutherland, Sir William


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Evans, Ernest
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)




Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Wise, Frederick


Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Whaler, Col. Granville C. H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Townley, Maximilian G.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Vickers, Douglas
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.



Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Winterton, Earl
McCurdy.


Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 98.

Division No. 76.]
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Goff, Sir R. Park
Perkins, Walter Frank


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Gould, James C.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Atkey, A. R.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Remer, J. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Renwick, Sir George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel John
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hallwood, Augustine
Rodger, A. K.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Haslam, Lewis
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart, (Gr'nw'h)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Blane, T. A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Seager, Sir William


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkins, John W. W.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Horno, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Butcher, Sir John George
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hurd, Percy A.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Carr, W. Theodore
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sugden, W. H.


Carter, R. A. D. (Mall., Withington)
Jameson, John Gordon
Sutherland, Sir William


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Taylor, J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Lindsay, William Arthur
Thorpe, Capt. J. H.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Lloyd, George Butler
Townley, Maximilian G.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Vickers, Douglas


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Ednam, Viscount
Manville, Edward
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Elveden, Viscount
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Evans, Ernest
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Winterton, Earl


Fell, Sir Arthur
Morrison, Hugh
Wise, Frederick


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Wolmer, Viscount


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Neal, Arthur
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)



Gange, E. Stanley
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John
Parker, James
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)


Adamson, Rt. Hon, William
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Casey, T. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clough, Sir Robert


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Banton, George
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bromfield, William
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Cairns, John
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Cape, Thomas
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Doyle, N. Grattan
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lawson, John James
Sutton, John Edward


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lunn, William
Swan, J. E.


Finney, Samuel
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Forrest, Walter
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Galbraith, Samuel
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gillis, William
Matthews, David
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, John Edmund
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Waterson, A. E.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Myers, Thomas
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Grundy, T. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Halls, Walter
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Hancock, John George
Rae, H. Norman
Wintringham, Margaret


Hartshorn, Vernon
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)



Hinds, John
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Holmes, J. Stanley
Robertson, John
Mr. W. Smith and Mr. Kennedy.


Irving, Dan
Rose, Frank H.



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, three to be nominated by the House and four by the Committee of Selection.

Resolved,
That this House, while fully recognising the qualities of thrift which have been made manifest by such large numbers of men and women workers, and while desirous of encouraging such efforts among all wage earners as may safeguard their welfare in old age, must have regard to the grave financial exigencies of the country which so seriously affect industry, and cannot, therefore, until more hopeful conditions arise, add to the burdens already borne by the taxpayers of the nation.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY POWERS ACT, 1919.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Representation of the Laity (Amendment) Measure, 1922, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.
This is purely a formal Motion to which, so far as I know, there is no objection in any quarter of the House. I think, however, it is due to the House that I should simply explain the facts. Under the Enabling Act passed in 1919 certain powers were conferred on the Church Assembly, and the constitution of that body was referred to in the Act. Since that date it has been found desirable to introduce two or three very small unimportant Amendments in the constitution of the Church Assembly, but before they can be carried out it is necessary to get the approval of this and the other House, otherwise it might be regarded as being a different body to that on which the powers were conferred by the Enabling
Act. I would remind the House that under the Enabling Act all Measures come before an Ecclesiastical Committee representative of both Houses of Parliament, and on this Free Churchmen and hon. Members who are not members of the Church of England sit. The Ecclesiastical Committee has reported upon the Measure, and it has unanimously recommended that it does not interfere with the constitutional right of any of His Majesty's subjects and recommends that it should be passed into law. The changes in constitution of the Church Assembly are very small indeed, and merely provide that diocesan conferences shall be elected every three years instead of one year, and that when the incumbent of a parish dies the Chairman of the Church Council should preside at the meetings in his place. That is the full effect of the Measure, and I hope that the House will agree to my Motion.

Major BARNETT: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I want to call attention to the effect of the passing of this Motion. It will be within the recollection of the House that when this Bill was passed it was said that all the Church of England wanted was to be master in her own house. It is now found that that Measure was inadequate, and the Church of England is now trying to have her cake and eat it. She is to retain all the privileges of a State Church, but wishes to be relieved of State control. Not one of her advantages or privileges as a State church are to be given up, and she is now to be allowed to say that her freedom is not sufficient. I
am sure that throughout the country there is a growing desire for the divorce of the State from the Church. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I know that a vast majority of the community, and every man who loves the Church, whether it be the Church of England or any other branch of the Christian Church, would wish that Church to govern itself entirely, free from the control of this House, and free from interference by any Acts we might pass. We take the view that the State Church should, if it wishes, have entire autonomy and self-government, and should frankly say that the time has passed when the Church should be dependent upon the State for its authority, and that we should have general disestablishment, because of the necessity of asserting the principle that a State and its Church should not be interlocked, so that the Church cannot pursue her spiritual development and carry on without control by the State. Those of us who take that view and supported the passing of this Bill most reluctantly now find ourselves faced with this fresh measure. All I have to say is this. [Interruption.] I am not to be stopped by the groans of hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent diverse religious interests. The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Colonel Archer-Shee) will remember the position his own Church once undoubtedly occupied, and he must therefore support me in this that if by age, or tradition, or authority or any other of the blessings that have preceded in all ages any single Church should dominate the life of this country it is his Church. There is no Church other than his that has such a claim to traditional authority. This House having made very generous concessions in the past, we ought not now to allow without protest further encroachments. I am making my protest very briefly as compared with the boredom inflicted on many of us on other occasions by hon. Members who are now interrupting me—a boredom which made one wish to be in any place other than this House. I am speaking on a fundamental principle that those of us who supported the Church Enabling Bill did so on the understanding that it was to go only so far, yet now we are asked to make further concessions on the plea that the proposal is pro forma. We believe we ought not to be so asked.
Having made my protest, I resume my seat.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I do not think it is fair that the observations of the last speaker should remain unchallenged. This Measure does not confer any additional powers on the National Assembly of the Church of England, and, if I may, I will quote the closing words of the Ecclesiastical Committee as to the effect of this Measure. They are:
No infringement of the constitutional rights of the subject is involved in the proposals of the Measure, and the Committee are of opinion that it is expedient that the Measure should become law.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £75,250, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £75,245, be granted for the said Service."

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EAST INDIA LOANS (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
May I say, for the benefit of those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who were not present during the Debates on the two stages of the Financial Resolution, that I then went very fully into the constitutional reasons for this Bill, and
referred to the fact that we are exactly following precedent in applying for powers before our present borrowing powers are exhausted, that the security or guarantee for these proposed loans, if they are put on the market, will be the same as hitherto in the case of former loans of the same nature, and that the position is in effect unaltered by the Government of India Act, 1919. Lastly, I dealt with the question of purchasing material here, and on that point I should like just to add a word to what I then said. I stated that it was impossible, in view of the altered relations of the Government of India to the Government of this country, to give a pledge that railway material required to be purchased with the proceeds of the loans raised under this Bill will be purchased in this country, but I said that I had no reason to anticipate that the conditions in the future would be other than they have been in the past, when a very large quantity of such material has been purchased in this country. I said that I would give the figures, which I will give now, and they really are rather remarkable, for the last available year, namely, 1921–22. Up to the 24th March, 1922, including State loans and guaranteed contracts, the proportion of railway expenditure in India between British contracts and foreign contracts was as follows: £11,000,000 was spent on British contracts, and only £157,000 on foreign contracts. To those of my hon. Friends—some of whom have approached mc privately, while others spoke in the Debate—who have expressed apprehension, very largely on account of their constituents, in regard to the purchase of manufactured railway and other material required in India, I would say that there is no reason for their thinking that they will not get the bulk of this business; but, for reasons which I do not want to go into now, but which I gave on the Financial Resolution, it is impossible to lay down as a pledge that the material will be purchased here.
I will only add a few words about the need for money for capital expenditure on Indian railways, as I promised to do when I spoke on the previous occasion. Before doing so, I should like to refer to a point which was raised, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw), as to whether the introduction
of this Bill had anything to do with the Government of India's Budget deficit. That was a very pertinent question, in view of the fact that the Government of India have a serious deficit in their Budget, and I can answer it categorically in the negative, as, indeed, I did on the previous occasion; and I am able to add that the Bill was, as a matter of fact, drafted some weeks before the Budget discussions took place. In spite of heavy increases of taxation in India this year and last, the Budget for 1922–23 exhibits a deficit of approximately 9 crores. The financing of this deficit will probably involve more borrowing than the Government of India originally contemplated, and this will, so far as can be foreseen, entirely take the form of the issue of a larger number of Treasury bills in India than would otherwise have been necessary. But this is the point. The £50,000,000 which this Bill asks power to raise is intended purely for productive capital expenditure and has no connection with the deficit, and the loans under it will be issued as may be necessary over a period of years. The Government of India contemplates a railway programme of 150 crores—approximately £100,000,000 during the next five years. It will be seen that the amount for which the Bill asks sanction represents only half the total productive expenditure which is contemplated in the period to which I have referred. By the original Government of India Act we have to receive the sanction of this House for permission to borrow money from this country, and we shall, as hitherto, raise a considerable amount of money in India.
The Acworth Committee 6how, by very expensive quotations from the evidence they took, that the existing Indian railway system is entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the country, and that there is urgent need of drastic measures of reform and, reconstruction. In the mass of other material with which everyone has to deal in these days perhaps the importance attaching to the conclusions of that Committee have been rather overlooked, but they are of fundamental importance in considering the future of Indian railways, and incidentally of the whole of Indian commerce and trade expansion. They consider that the defects in the system are due primarily to the failure of the Government in the past to provide adequate funds both for capital works and
for renewals, the inevitable results of a system which has not developed to meet the requirements of great commercial enterprise. Stress is laid on the fact that railway investment is profitable and is also indirectly to the benefit of the country. At a previous stage an hon. Member on the Labour Benches wondered what advantage the poorest people in India would get out of the Bill. They will get every advantage. There is nothing which will be more likely to benefit them. There is another point that I promised to deal with at this stage. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece) wanted to know how far this expenditure was supported by the Legislative Assembly in India. Perhaps I did not give as full an answer as I might have done. The Acworth Committee recommended an expenditure of 150 crores on capital charges spread over five years and definitely contemplates the raising of loans in the United Kingdom for the purpose. The Assembly voted appropriations amounting to 30 crores for capital outlay on the railways.
I turn from that to give a very few facts about the position of Indian railways which ought to be given in view of the importance of this proposal. I am afraid they are dreary statistics except to those who take an interest in the fascinating subject of Indian railway extension. The capital expenditure between 1910 and 1915 was £10,000,000, between 1915 and 1919 only £4,000,000, and between 1919 and 1922, £16,000,000. From that it will be seen that there was a heavy falling off in expenditure during the War, with the result that we have now got a heavy deficiency to be met for which a large capital outlay is necessary. Our receipts, taking the years 1916 to 1921, were 1916–17, £47,000,000 gross and £25,000,000 net, and 1920–21, £61,500,000 gross and £21,000,000 net. The figures for last year show a loss of about £1,500,000. It is the first year for many years in which there has been a loss. It may be ascribed to exceptional circumstances which operate in every country in the world, as affecting railways, resulting from war reactions, in particular bad trade conditions, the lack of sufficient rolling stock and other facilities which we require urgently and which we hope to secure with the capital which we are going to raise.
The Indian railways are State owned and either managed directly by the State or by companies which provide a small proportion of the capital. The bulk of the capital is provided by the State. The companies only take a share in the profit according to the provisions of their respective contracts. The total State provided capital expended on Indian railways is, roughly, £340,000,000. The capital raised by the companies amounts to about £65,000,000, but, of course, any proposal by private companies for railway expenditure by providing capital will always be considered carefully by the Government of India.
The figures for the distribution of mileage between the Government and the guaranteed companies, up to 31st March, 1921, are: Government, 8,929 miles; Indian States, 2,889; and companies, 25,211. The increase of mileage in the period 1910–21 has been 4,900 miles, of which 1,100 were constituted under the Lord Chelmsford's Viceroyalty up to the 31st of March, 1921. I was asked by the hon Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) on a previous day whether, if the Government of India secure the powers which it is desired to obtain under this Bill, the money is going to be applied to strategic railways. It has been in the past a criticism of successive Governments of India that they spent a great deal of money on strategic railways. I do not say That the hon. Member has made this criticism, but as the point has been raised it is right to point out that of the total of 1,000 miles of railway projected or under construction last year there were only 26 miles which had reference to a strategic railway. That was the railway in the Khyber Pass. The other railways are all railways we are going to tap, valuable agricultural districts in India, and which will, there is little doubt, pay a good return when they are constructed. Finally I would refer to the fact that from 1910 to 1920 the number of passengers carried annually increased from 371,000,000 to 533,000,000, or 44 per cent., which is a very remarkable figure. The tonnage of goods carried has increased from 65,000,000 tons to 99,000,000 tons, or by 52 per cent., and during the same period the mileage of the railways has increased by 14 per cent. only. That shows there is room for expansion. Looking at it from every point of view, while any proposal to raise money, even if it be raised by the Government of India,
is naturally regarded with jealous eyes in certain quarters in this country—this money is raised by the Government and the taxpayers of India will be, as they have always been in the past, responsible—it should be made clear that it is urgently needed to develop the railway system of that country and1 will bring in, I believe, a big return. Nothing makes people more discontented than the feeling that railway development in their country is prevented.

Mr. ACLAND: The Noble Lord has done his very best to meet the points raised by Members of the House on previous stages of the Bill and I am sure we shall all want to give him a Second Reading of the Bill without long delay. The Noble Lord, without referring to my questions specifically, has dealt with some of them incidentally. First, there was the point whether any of this money was to be acquired for strategic railways. He did not answer that question specifically, but I accept his statement as satisfactory.

Earl WINTERTON: None, except the Khyber Pass Railway.

Mr. ACLAND: That was in connection with the last loan. Will the Noble Lord give us a similar assurance with regard to the intentions now?

Earl WINTERTON: As far as can be foreseen.

Mr. ACLAND: That is quite satisfactory. The Government of India, I understand, has not in mind any railways other than that short line for definitely strategic purposes. Can the Noble Lord tell us what profit is normally being made now on this railway organisation in India, and whether there is a definite profit being made on irrigation? He has not told us what proportion of the £50,000,000 it is intended to spend on irrigation, or anything as to the schemes of irrigation which the Indian Government has in mind. Can he say a word about that subject? Thirdly, I want to know what source of control or advice under the new constitution of the Provinces is given to the local legislatures and to the Ministers who are Indians in those legislatures? Are railways one of the Departments which in the ordinary province are looked after by a native Minister, or are they
a reserve service? To what extent is Indian criticism and advice and Ministerial responsibility exercised now with regard to Indian railway policy? Has any negotiation passed with the Treasury as to the amount of these loans which are to be raised in the United Kingdom within the next financial year? I have a sort of feeling that the Treasury cannot want this market to be used more than is necessary for raising money. Can he tell us what proportion of the amount likely to be raised in the next financial year is to be raised in India, and what proportion in this country? I hope the Noble Lord would not mind my asking these question after all the kindness and candour he has shown in regard to this matter. I think they do naturally arise out of the question, and I do not raise them with any desire at all to obstruct or delay the progress of the Bill.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: In asking the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) a question I wish to thank him for the explanation of the point I raised on a previous occasion. My question is directed to Clause 5 of the Bill. There is a statement there as to the power given to the Secretary of State by this or any previous Act of Parliament to raise money by means of stock or other securities, that is to give him power to redeem stock at a premium, and to arrange for giving an option, subject to such conditions and so on as he may determine. The Clause goes on to say:
Any stock or securities created for the purpose of an exchange under this Section shall not be taken into account in calculating the nominal amount of securities authorised to be issued under this or any previous Act.
I do not claim to be a financial authority, and I ask this question purely for my own information and for that of others who may possibly be also under a misapprehension regarding it. Is this intended to mean something in the nature of putting that stock in practically the same category as stocks in this country that have received a very bad name and have had a great deal of criticism directed against them both in connection with our home railways and industrial concerns? I refer to what are considered to be watered stocks. If these stocks have to be paid at a premium, supposing that premium to be only 5 per cent., I take it that will mean that that stock will have to be redeemed at 105 per cent. whereas
it will appear on the balance sheet as of a value of one hundred. I do not know whether it will be sold at a discount or not. In any case, there seems to be a danger of the same criticism being directed against it as against the watered stock of companies in this country. I shall be glad to have that cleared up if I am under a misapprehension regarding it.
We are really anxious, and I am certain the Noble Lord is anxious, that as much as possible of this money should be expended in this country. I take it from the Noble Lord's remarks that he is also of that mind in order to create employment here. I am speaking for a large industrial town which is concerned with the manufacture of railway rolling-stock. It contains three of the largest locomotive shops—the Hyde Park Works, the Polmadie Works, and the Atlas Works—all of which at the present time are in a very tad condition. If there is any possibility of some of this money being spent in the supply of railway rolling-stock and coming to Glasgow, I for one—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not speaking on behalf of my own constituency, because all three locomotive shops are at the end of the town outside my constituency, and I do not believe a single one of my constituents is employed there. I am speaking on behalf of the people of my own native town, where locomotive construction is carried out, which is recognised as first-class work in every part of the world. I am asking that the men there should be provided with an opportunity of getting some employment out of the £50,000,000 which the Secretary of State for India is getting power to raise.

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: This measure, in its previous stage, was subjected to comment mostly of a very useful nature. It has also been subjected to comment of a singularly useless and inept nature. Not many weeks ago I had the opportunity of discussing the railway question in India with Mr. Gandhi. I say "discussing," although it was a rather one-sided conversation. I put before him the railway problem in India, as it was summarised in the Report of the Acworth Committee. I pointed out the serious state in which the railways of India were, and asked him, as the leader of a great popular movement, if he had any policy to suggest regarding the rail-
ways. His answer was "No. I have not thought it worth while to think about railways." He further said that it would be time enough to begin to think about the railways when a hand-spinning machine was to be found in every cottage in India.
I thought that in my conversation with Mr. Gandhi I had heard the most foolish thing I was ever likely to hear on railway matters, but I reckoned without some of my hon. Friends in this House. Only the other day we were solemnly told that railways had been thrust upon the people of India, and that the people of India did not want them. We were also told that, after all, this was a question of the workers' interests and, remembering that "every road leads to Rome," I conclude that every Bill and every question brought before this House leads to a Labour grievance. It is difficult to believe, even with the words on record, but one hon. Member—I am not sure that he is in the House to-night, and if he is he will forgive me—delivered himself of the remarkable statement that the worker pays, and will have to make up the deficiency on railways in India. Further, he said that we had to be careful in making railways in India, and in spending money on railways in India, lest we should bring into existence a body of workers who would lower the standard of labour in England.
12 M.
Did Mr. Gandhi, in the remark I cited just now, say anything half so foolish? Much more of that nature has been said in this Debate, ant I put it to hon. Members of the Labour party that they might have made contributions to the Debate of a slightly more useful character. They might, for instance, have told labour in England that the amount of work which came to this country was very largely dependant upon the industry, steadiness, and regularity with which the English worker attended to his work. Fears have been expressed lest orders placed with the money raised by these loans will go abroad. Some orders do go abroad, as the figures laid before the House by the Noble Lord have shown, and it is right that the possibility that orders may go abroad, even in increasing numbers, should be held up before the workers of this country, so that they may realise how much it will depend upon them
whether this money is spent in England or abroad. Happily, as the figures show, by far the greater part has so far been spent here, but it should be recognised that the proportion which will continue to be spent in this country may largely depend upon the way in which the workers apply themselves to their work. There are very many aspects of this question which invite attention, but I know nothing of greater importance in connection with railway policy in India than that the railways should be put upon a commercial basis and stand upon their own feet, and that they should not be mixed up with the general finance of the Government of India. We want to see railway enterprise still commended to the confidence of the investing public in England, as it has been in the past. Some things were said from the Benches opposite the other night which, if they were believed in, or any importance were attached to them, would not help to strengthen the position of railway investments in this country.
We had brought before us a lurid vision of the possibility of the time coming when the Legislatures in India might repudiate these loans. I am sure that those remarks were not made with mischievous intent, but I was impressed by the fact that the hon. Member who spoke of the legislators of India in the future so far forgetting their duty as to repudiate the honourable obligations of the Indian State, had taken an active part in the passing of a Bill which gave the people of India the large legislative powers which now exist. If there were any possibility of those Assemblies so far forgetting their duty and the obligations of honour, they were not fit to enjoy the political powers which have been given them. I believe the people of India are fit for the full enjoyment of those legislative powers, and because I believe that I feel confident that there is no danger of such a dire calamity as the repudiation of one farthing of the debt of India. I feel that the Members of this House should more fully realise their responsibility, and if they did that we should not have such potentially harmful statements made as that to which I have referred. The present administration of railways in India has many grounds for appealing to the confidence of the people. Those who speak from what they probably con-
sider the democratic point of view, and speak distrustfully of the railway administration in India are probably not aware that, in recent instructions from the Railway Board to the various railway administrations, express instructions have been give that the grants which are to be made for special expenditure shall be laid out primarily upon the improvement of third class accommodation. That is put in the forefront of the programme, a fact which shows that something like democratic sympathies do prevail among those who have responsibility for the control of railways there.
One of the questions that has been brought to notice lately—and it was specially brought to notice during the inquiry of the Acworth Committee—has been the increased employment of Indians in railway administration. A good deal of evidence was put before the Acland Committee on that subject, and very definite recommendations have been made on the point. May I say that, while it is a legitimate ambition on the part of the people of India that they should take a larger share in the administration and working of the railways, there has been a tendency lately to rush things and to hunt to death that hobby of the Indianisation of the administration. After all, the test must be that of efficiency, and so long as that test is applied we may trust to an efficient working of the Indian railways. Only the other day I heard of a very prominent Indian gentleman going to one of the administrative offices of one of the great railways and asking that a larger number of Indians should be employed in the higher posts. "Very well," was the answer of the chief administrator of that railway, "you send in a list of Indians whom you know to be fit for employment in some of the higher posts, and I will give the fullest and fairest consideration to their claims." I am told that not one name has been submitted.
As for the position of the Indian railways upon the Stock Exchange in London, notwithstanding what has been said in this House, we have happily had recently a very marked improvement in the values of gilt-edged Indian securities. In the last fortnight of March, I believe, the leading Indian Government loans went up by something like 4½ per cent., and we may look forward to Indian railways in the future enjoying as good a position
as other first-class Indian securities. The railways have a difficult time before them. Unfortunately, their working expenses just now are very high—one could almost say appalling; something like 77 to 80 per cent.—but that is very largely the result of what I hope are passing conditions, mainly, the enormously high price of coal. It may be that before very long that may be reduced considerably, not only by a larger output from the Indian mines, but by the substitution of oil for coal in the working. When the working expenses have been brought down and the receipts have been increased, as they will be by the new rates, which came into operation on Saturday last, we may hope for a very marked improvement in the position of Indian railways.
Here may I make one remark, and that is that I think the Government of India did the railway companies a very bad turn and dealt unfairly with them when, a year ago, they levied a surtax upon freights. At the time I thought it to be a rather mean proceeding, because it took all the benefit for the Government and did not give the railways their due share of the surplus profits. That has been abandoned, and I am sure the Government of India, through the Railway Board, will give a free hand to the railway administration in increasing their rates. The people of India enjoy the lowest railway fares of any people in the world. Notwithstanding their imperfect provision for third class passengers, the railway administrations of India have, on the whole, been sympathetic and generous to the people. I have the fullest possible faith in the future of Indian railways, and I am sure the investing public of London will in the future show the same confidence in them as they have in the past.

Mr. G. TERRELL: I desire to make a protest against a Bill of this importance being taken at a late hour of the night. We are discussing after midnight a Bill authorising a loan of £50,000,000. It is not a party matter; serious questions are involved, and the Measure ought to have been taken at a different hour. The greatest apprehension was caused by the statement of the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for India the other day. He quoted a Resolution passed last September by the Legislative Assembly that the High Commissioner for India in
London should be instructed to buy stores in the cheapest market. We understood from that—and I am speaking here on behalf of a very important body of manufacturers—that the Government of India will in future buy anywhere on the Continent where they can get the cheapest prices. If the Government of India come to this country for authority to raise a loan, we think it is only fair play if terms are imposed on that Government providing that the money raised in this country should be spent here. We are in a position of the greatest difficulty, with a vast army of unemployed, with vast factories capable of supplying the needs of India idle, with men drawing unemployment pay, and everything in a thoroughly disorganised state; and yet we have a threat thrown out—and it has not been in any way modified by the statement of the Noble Lord to-night—that the Government of India will in the future buy in the cheapest market. I will quote to the House a resolution passed by the policy committee of the National Union of Manufacturers. It was to this effect: "That in view of the state of trade and unemployment in this country, and of the fact that British manufacturers are unable to tender in competition against manufacturers in Germany and other continental countries with a collapsed exchange, the meeting is of opinion that it is undesirable that Parliamentary sanction should be granted for the raising of a loan in this country except on the terms that so much of the money as is not spent in India should be expended in this country." I think that that is quite a reasonable suggestion to make to the Government. It is a matter of great concern to us in relation to employment, and I am surprised, nay, astounded, that the Labour party, who are so deeply concerned in unemployment, are practically absent to-night.

Mr. SWAN: Some of us are here to voice the Labour view.

Mr. TERRELL: The hon. Gentleman says that he is the voice of Labour. He may in a very, very small sense voice Labour, but does he really represent Labour in this country? The point of this question was raised some months ago, last November, in a Resolution which was sent to the India Office, urging that it should be a condition in connection with loans raised in this country by
countries abroad that the orders for the purchase of the material for each loan raised must be placed in this country. The India Office replied that the only new loan raised by the Secretary of State in the last 12 months was the Government of India Loan for £7,500,000 in April, and in this case it was stipulated in the prospectus (they said) that the entire proceeds of the issue should be utilised for the purchase of material in the United Kingdom. I want to ask my Noble Friend whether he is prepared to make the same stipulation in any prospectus he may issue in regard to this £50,000,000 Loan—that it is to be for material purchased in this country, and not for German or American material, or other foreign manufactures?
We are deeply concerned to-day in the attempt to revive industry. We cannot do it, we are not big enough in ourselves; and unless we can secure for our home manufacturers every particle of manufacture which can be provided either by our Colonies, or Great Dominions, or the Indian Empire, well, so much the worse. Again, may I remind the House of what the Prime Minister told us last October when we had a most important debate in the House on unemployment. He referred particularly to the railways in India and said they were short of material. He suggested that huge orders were to be placed here. He told us that goods were rotting in India because they could not be transported, and he quoted instances, one in a Madras works where 11,000 wagons were needed and only 2,000 or 3,000 were available. The right hon. Gentleman held out hopes that the books of all railway supply contractors were to be filled with orders. Those orders have not materialised. Now is the opportunity, if my Noble Friend is true to the faith he used to profess, and I hope he will see that this money, the whole of it expended outside India, is expended in this country, and does not go to other countries. That is the protest which I have to make, and I venture to think it is an important one. I hope my Noble Friend will be able either to give the assurance I have asked for or, failing that, that he will accept some Amendment to this Bill which will make it clear that this money, as far as is practicable, is to be spent in this country. If India thinks she can obtain the goods to
better advantage in other countries, let her raise the money in India and not come to this country for it. It may be asked, why should we turn away good business—for the raising of the money is good business? My answer is that we want money for our industries here: many of our industries at this moment are starving for money. Here the Government come with a proposal which is backed by the security of the British Empire—a proposal to raise money. It may be asserted that the United Kingdom is not backing the loan it is the British Empire which is doing so, for we could not let the Government of India down. We shall have to see it through. It is also a matter of very great consequence to us because we have so much unemployment in our midst; our works are standing idle for lack of orders which it is possible for India to give us. If India says, "We will take advantage of the German exchange and of the Austrian exchange and of other collapsed exchanges to place our orders on the Continent," then it is only right and proper that we should leave India to raise the money herself. That is the whole point which I have to make. I ask my Noble Friend either to give an undertaking now that this money will be expended in England, or to agree to accept some Amendment to the Bill when we come to the Committee stage which will make clear what is the intention of this House in granting India the facilities which she desires. That is the point which I desire to urge upon the House, and I trust that my Noble Friend will be able to give me a satisfactory answer.

Major GLYN: By the Government of India Act which was passed by this House, control of the affairs of India is now in charge of the Indian Legislative Councils, and therefore it seems to me a pure waste of words to expect us to interfere in regard to this matter. The only way in which British manufacturers can hope to obtain orders from India is by turning out articles of such a character and quality and price as will enable them to compete with every other market in the world. As a matter of fact, when a loan was raised recently in the United States on behalf of Chili and the Argentine, the United States Government made it a stipulation that part of the money should be spent in the States with the
manufacturers in that country, and the result was that the manufacturers in the United States put prices up to such an extent that the advantage of raising the loan there was overborne by the excessive charges made by the manufacturers. We must get away from make-believe as far as we can in this matter. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) that those who represent the British manufacturers want this. I know something about the locomotive industry in this country, and I have not heard any one say that they want State interference to enable them to carry on. Day after day we have been crying for the removal of State interference and yet the hon. Gentleman now asks for it, although he must know that the power of interference does not rest with us, as the matter is entirely in the hands of India. The Legislative Councils of India are masters in their own house. They are prepared and are anxious to buy materials they need in this country and the sooner the workers and the manufacturers realise that they can only hope to obtain orders as a result of prompt, cheap and good production the better it will be for them. I am convinced of one thing and that is of the vicious idea that this country can farm India for the advantage of our own people must cease. Half of our trouble in India has been caused by the wrong feeling in India that we have been farming that country for our own advantage. Personally I should regret very much if anything were done to encourage such a feeling.
I am prepared to believe that this Money Bill will be raised in India. In deed I rose to ask the Noble Lord if his attention had been called to page 73 of the Railway Report in which these words occur:
The money required for Indian railways should, as far as possible, he raised in India.
Then it is pointed out that the three provincial banks of India are now amalgamated into one Imperial Bank which is, quite capable, through its branches, of raising the money needed for the expansion of railways throughout the length and breadth of India. I am certain that the security of India can only be maintained not by troops with coercive measures, but by gradually getting the people of India to sell their trinkets and ornaments and to invest the proceeds in
their own trade and industries. I am sure it is quite possible for this money to be raised in India and that they will do their best to buy what they require in this country because they know we can turn out far better goods than other people. In fact, we have the trade in our own hands if only we get to work. We need have no fear of competition, and I am convinced in my own mind that there is not a man in India who would not welcome the sending of orders to this country in preference to any other country. This is an opportunity for the Imperial Bank of India to make a real attempt for the first time to raise money in India for the benefit of the Indian railways.

Mr. SWAN: Anyone who knows anything about India and the Indian people must be aware of the wonderful resources of that country, and must also realise how essential it is to promote the development of the railways of the country in order to provide employment for the people. The example being set by the India Office in this matter is one which might well be extended to our own country.
It has been said that the financial banks of India are now amalgamated into one Imperial Bank, and that that bank is quite capable through its branches to raise the money to defray the cost of expansion of railways throughout the length and breadth of India by gradually getting the people of India to sell their gold trinkets and their ornaments and getting them to invest this money in their own industry and trade. I am certain that it is quite possible to do so. I am surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir T. Bennett). I agree with him in the criticism he has made that such an important Measure for spending 50 millions in India or in any part of the Empire should be introduced at this late hour. What I cannot understand is his criticism of the action of the Labour party, who should have more sense than either he or I, in going home at such an unreasonable hour. It seems that we are the only fools to do so. However eloquently the case has been put for India by my hon. Friend to-night, other Members on these benches can put just as eloquent a case for the development at home of our resources. We want to say that it is just as important that we should have railway expansion at our own doors as it is that there should be ex-
pansion in India. We know that India has the finest rivers and the finest hills and mountains, and the finest dews to fertilise the land.
It is essential that we should spend not only 50 millions, but substantially more in India, in order that employment might be found for the people there and that employment might again percolate to this country through the supply to India of engines and other things they are in need of. But why could not they do it themselves as was suggested? And why could not they do it out of their own resources? I cannot understand the criticism of the Labour party last week. We were misinterpreted. We quoted to show that we were rather apprehensive as to the development of India. We quoted from civil servants and others in India who suggested that India ought to be developed by expanding and developing the mines and importing coal here. If my hon. Friend had gone on with the quotations he would have seen the apprehensions of members of the Labour party, and that it was not against the expansion of India and the development of her resources so much as the pecuniary interests of certain individuals. I was surprised that it was suggested that the reason they could not find the means to develop and expand was the high cost of production due to the high price of coal in India. We find the same arguments that the hon. Gentleman used tonight against expansion used in this country where the high cost of coal is also given as the reason for the diminution of enterprise.
In reply to a question of mine, we find that the wages dropped from 10d. and 4d., and yet my hon. Friend hopes that if we get over this loan and economies are effected by the reduction of the wages of miners in India, they might be able to launch on their own initiative by putting the mines on a more economic basis, and also the railways. I hope this country will not recognise any such policy. We know that these are plain facts, and there are Members in this House sitting on that bench who suggest that we ought to use the coal that is produced in India to batten down the wages of the miners in this country. We hope that we will go on and expand the
resources of India, but, at the same time, we must not forget the great cost put upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer. If it is good for India, it is also good for us that we should launch out and develop our own resources. Our resources are just as valuable as those of India, and we also have rivers that might be harnessed. But all we can do to men out of work is to provide doles and demoralise them and make them depend on charity. We want to see the development of India, but we must not forget the wealth at our own feet. I hope the policy in India will percolate through to the Departments in this country, so that useful and reproductive work might be found which will be a benefit to the nation, add to the nation's wealth and, at the same time, reduce the taxes of the nation.

Earl WINTERTON: I will deal first with the points raised by hon. Members. My right hon. Friend asked in the first place whether we intend to carry out an irrigation policy as a result of this Bill, and whether irrigation would be profitable. I explained that we have taken power to raise money for irrigation purposes in case we required it, but there is no intention to spend the money at present. The only other point is as regards the negotiations before this Bill was issued. I understand the Treasury were informed and raised no objection to the Bill being brought forward. I think the other points raised in the Debate were all raised on the previous stage, and I venture with diffidence to appeal to the House now to come to a decision.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I should like to put a question on Clause 6. The point I want to ask about is whether the Indian Government compounds with British revenue or does it get off scot free?

Earl WINTERTON: I think that is a question of detail, and perhaps my hon. Friend will raise it on the Committee stage.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Will the Noble Lord tell us if he has any idea what proportion of this money may be raised in India and what proportion will be raised here?

Earl WINTERTON: The Indian Government will no doubt try to raise as much money as they can in India, but
the Bill gives them power to raise money in this country also.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow (Wednesday).—[Colonel Gibbs.]

OXFORD AND ST. ALBANS WINE PRIVILEGES (ABOLITION) BILL.

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel and agents heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That four be the quorum.—[Mr. Hilton Young.]

ESTIMATES (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Ordered, That Captain Craig be discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates.

Ordered, added to That Mr. Pennefather be the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before One o'Clock.